RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jaime and Ken.  Please see my responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:15 AM
        To: 'Jaime Plug In'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3
        
        

        Jaime and WPM Team Members:

         

        Please see my comments under yours below...  

         

        Ken

         

         

        From: Jaime Plug In [mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:37 PM
        To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3
        Importance: High

         

        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. 

        [KAB] I would suggest that 'consensus building' is not as much a 
purpose of prioritizing the GNSO's work than a technique or approach we are 
recommending to develop the project ratings/rankings.    We could accomplish it 
by using only individual Councilor ratings which is actually the first stage of 
a multi-step method. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] What Ken says makes sense to me.  Is that consistent 
with what you were suggesting Jaime?  

         

        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.

        [KAB] Perhaps Chuck can clarify; but, as I understand it, "Implem" 
projects occupy Staff primarily and not the community.   There is little or no 
"management" work to be done by the Council once a project reaches this stage 
of its life-cycle - it is in the hands of Staff.   As I recall the team's 
discussion, we agreed to keep these projects in Table 2 so that the Council 
could develop an understanding of the total effort consuming Staff as it 
considers whether to initiate new project work.   To use an example, the GNSO 
Website project is in the implementation phase (in effect); therefore, the 
Council would not need to rate/prioritize it.   The Council would need to 
recognize that Staff resources are being consumed in that implementation, which 
might affect the GNSO's ability to take on another project that would otherwise 
tap the same personnel.
        [Gomes, Chuck] The GNSO is only involved in implementation work to the 
extent that the Staff implementation team involves them.  Some ways that this 
has happened are: 1) forming a community implementation team (this was done 
with the transfer policy); 2) request for community comments on implementation 
plan as has happened several times for new gTLDs; 3) formation of a group to 
work on specific issues (e.g., STI).  In cases like 1) and 3) those special 
projects would certainly need to be prioritized because they would involve 
resources from the broader GNSO community, but I am not convinced that general 
implemenation efforts should be prioritized.  Here are some examples of 
implementation projects that I don't think would have benefited or would 
benefit in the future for prioritization efforts except to the exent that Staff 
resources become limited: RAA changes; Whois Studies; GNSO Constituency 
Reconfirmations; synthesis of Whois requirements.  Also, adding more projects 
to the prioritization effort will just make it more complicated and require 
more time.

         

        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.

        [KAB] I'm not sure I understand this comment in its entirety.  
        [Gomes, Chuck] If I understand Jaime's comment correctly, I think I 
agree.  

         

        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
        jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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