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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I agree with Jaime´s comments but I suggest to mention the time needed for
the call, in order  to let participant´s plan ahead and avoid
musunderstandings.
Regards
Olga

2010/3/22 Jaime Plug In <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  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
> 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]
> *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.
>
>
>
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>