RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 and ANNEX - Latest Versions
On the topics pending (added as comments and edits to the doc and repeated below) 2.3 Deadline for individual councilor?s ratings My vote is 10 days deadline. 2.3.1 Range In my presentation to the Council I was asked how the Range is calculated. Think we should make a note here explaining that. 3.1 special teleconference I think that only a first prioritization will take 2 hours and that it would be better to leave out the mention to time. Also think that this distinction between the first and subsequent sessions might be acknowledged in the Op Procedures. Anyway, I vote for the first prioritization exercise to be done in one session. 3.2.2. Discussion protocol If we take an open microphone approach, only the same will talk. Think we could ask for extremes to provide their input and (if time constraints allow) then proceed to an open mic. Proposal: 1) State time limits to individual rationales (2 min) and to overall discussion (10 min). An average of 5 interventions per voting session. 2) Warn to avoid repetition of arguments ? interfere if it happens. 3) Invite extremes to provide input. 4) If time allows proceed to open mic. I know it seems draconian, but rules always do. 3.2.3. Polling. Recommend to add: Individual ratings are not identified. I would call step 4. ?Tie Breaker? A special tie breaker session should be pre-scheduled. Ties should be identified at the prioritization call and if there are ties, the special tie breaker session would be confirmed. Results would then be moved to Step 5. 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: segunda-feira, 22 de março de 2010 10:42 Para: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx Assunto: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 and ANNEX - Latest Versions Team: The latest version of Section 6 (v4) and the ANNEX (v1) are attached. I will also make PDF?s and upload them to the Adobe Connect room. Ken From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:19 PM To: Ken Bour Cc: Jaime Plug In; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 - Draft #3 Hi, is it there a new version of the documents for our conference call tomorrow? Regards Olga 2010/3/18 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> Jaime and WPM Team Members: Please see my comments under yours below? Ken From: Jaime Plug In [mailto: <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:37 PM To: 'Ken Bour'; <mailto:gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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. 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. 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. 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: <mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto: <mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Ken Bour Enviada em: quarta-feira, 17 de março de 2010 17:34 Para: <mailto:gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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:
Annex-Work Prioritization (KBv1-LGv1)-CG-JBW1.doc
|