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

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

I definitely would disagree that implementation projects automatically have a 
higher priority than other projects.  One of the things we need to realize is 
that implementation projects are usually staffed with different people than the 
policy staff so that becomes another reason why it may not make sense to 
prioritize them.  For example, the new gTLD implementation team is distinct for 
the policy staff team that supports the GNSO.
 
Chuck 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Jaime Plug In
        Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:15 AM
        To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3
        Importance: High
        
        

        My rejoinder below

         

        Jaime Wagner
        jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
                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