RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Section 6 and ANNEX - Latest Versions

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

The problem with leaving out the mention of time is that some people will plan 
for a shorter time period and then drop off the call.  I think we need to set 
expectations for two hours; if we beat that, good.  
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Jaime Plug In
        Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:30 PM
        To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: 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
        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: 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:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] 
        Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:37 PM
        To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
        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>  
[mailto: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 <mailto: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