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

["Jaime Plug In" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My rejoinder below

 

Jaime Wagner
 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cel (51) 8126-0916
Fax (51) 3123-1708

 

De: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 18 de março de 2010 12:59
Para: Ken Bour; Jaime Plug In; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3

 

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?

[JBW] Any process that takes an average supposes that the whole agrees that
this average reflects a reasonable compromise for all. This underlying
agreement is what I call consensus. Otherwise the group can always deny even
taking an average. Supposing that we will not face such a denial, the
priorities will be accepted as pertaining to the GNSO as a whole and not to
a particular House or SG. In this sense I think that the process will help
to foster agreement, if not consensus.

 

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.

[jbw]  I understand and agree with that. But the stated purpose is to
?ensure that Volunteer and Staff personnel are utilized in the most
efficacious and efficient manner?. But I feel (and would like to confirm my
reasoning with you) that we are indirectly stating that implementation
projects have higher priority than Pioritized Projects. Reasoning ?ad
absurdum?, say that staff is completely allocated to an implementation
project. Then, it would have always the highest priority because all other
projects would have to wait for its completion.

 

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. 

[Jbw] Trying to clarify. Who decides or formally acknowledges that a project
has been suspended, for instance? There?s no provision for such a process in
the document.

So, I?m proposing a formal and yet not so bureaucratic process for changes
in status or classification of a project:

1)      Staff suggests and/or the Chair decides and publishes his decision

2)      The decision has immediate effects, unless it is challenged by a
councilor.

3)      If the decision is challenged, this prioritization issue, should be
in the agenda of the next Council meeting or a special prioritization
session should occur.

4)      If the decision is not challenged, it would be naturally ratified in
the next regular prioritization session (whichever the period we choose for
it - annually or quarterly).

 

 

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