RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3
Thanks Ken, Some comments. (I make them here for the sake of readability, but they are also inserted in the attached Word doc.) 1. Addition to purposes: d. Consensus Building: to have a method to reach a reasonable consensus on priorities among Councilors and the GNSO community. 2. Comment on ?Inplem? projects (6.2.2) In view of the Purpose established on 6.1 (resource allocation) and considering that implementation may have a considerable resource consumption, I think we should review our decision to consider these as Non-Prioritized Projects. I already had brought this idea in one of our calls and as I remember I was convinced not to consider them as Prioritized Projects because we were dealing mainly with community resources and not staff?s. But that is not what is stated in the Purpose. 3. Comment on status and classification (6.2.3) There?s not a lack of provisions as to how a project status can be changed? Think that a decision by the Chair is enough. The decision would have immediate effect but should be validated in the next regular prioritization round. In the interim that decision could be challenged by any councilor, in which case a special prioritization session should be called upon. I could not yet give the necessary consideration (time) to item 6.3.5 (New Projects). But I think the above comments already deserve team?s consideration. Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cel (51) 8126-0916 Fax (51) 3123-1708 De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Ken Bour Enviada em: quarta-feira, 17 de março de 2010 17:34 Para: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx Assunto: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3 WPM Team Members: Thanks to Chuck and Wolf-Ulrich for their recent edits and comments. For those who haven?t had time to review the document, I created a new version in which I accepted most, if not all, of the suggested changes and added a few more of my own (redlined). I also attempted to address a few embedded comments and, in turn, added a couple more for the team?s consideration as we prepare for our session on Monday. This new version is labeled Draft #3 (or KBv3). Concerning our next two meetings, I have pinged Gisella for a Doodle poll on Monday, 22 & 29 March, and I expect that we will see something shortly from her. I am also working on a first draft of the Annex which I intent to submit to the WPM-DT email list tomorrow, Thursday. Again, I hope that we can focus our time Monday perfecting Section 6 and, if all goes well, take up the Annex subsequently. Ken Bour Attachment:
Section 6-Work Prioritization (KBv3-JW1&4-LG1-CG1-WK1).doc
|