Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3 (Brussels)

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ken,
good job!
I would suggest to add an action item in the last part of the document after
process flow with some indication to allow time for those who had comments.
Do you think that we will have time for that? I hope so.
Thanks again.
regards
Olga

2010/6/10 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> To:  GNSO Policy Staff & WPM-DT Members
>
>
>
> Below is a DRAFT letter that I am recommending be sent to the GNSO Council
> (and Liaison6c list) next Monday or Tuesday in preparation for the Work
> Prioritization session scheduled for Saturday morning in Brussels.   It is
> my first draft, so please feel free to recommend any additions, deletions,
> or changes that you think would be helpful.   My aim, with this
> correspondence, is to provide sufficient information, in advance, so that
> the meeting time can be maximized for Project Value Ratings discussions.
> Clearly, given the number of projects to be discussed (15) and the amount of
> time available (105 minutes), we have to stay focused or this step of the
> Work Prioritization effort will fail to achieve its objective.
>
>
>
> Please note that I have set this letter up for David’s signature vs.
> mine.   I am happy to send, but I think the nature of this message warrants
> coming from a more highly recognized authority.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
> ===
>
>
>
> *D-R-A-F-T*
>
>
>
> GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:
>
>
>
> In preparation for the GNSO Work Prioritization group discussion (Step 3)
> scheduled for Saturday, 19 June in Brussels (1000-1200; Room TBD),
> Councilors are encouraged to review the following material, in advance, so
> that a maximum amount of the two hours available can be devoted to the
> ratings discussion.
>
>
>
> I am pleased to report that, at the conclusion of Step 2 (9 June), Staff
> received 19 individual ratings (90%) and was able to aggregate the data
> successfully for the Council.   We had hoped that a few projects might have
> been candidates for exemption by virtue of having achieved significant
> commonality in the ratings; however, that expectation did not materialize.
> As a result, all 15 Eligible Projects will be taken up individually during
> the session.   If we can hold introductions and other preliminaries (e.g.
> logistics, seating, Internet connectivity) to 15 minutes or less, that will
> leave 105 minutes for 15 projects or approximately 7 minutes each!   In
> order to complete the work task in that compressed timeframe, it will be
> important for all participants to be prepared and conscientious of time.
>
>
>
> The following material has been prepared to address certain preliminary
> considerations so that these matters do not have to occupy bandwidth during
> the Brussels session:
>
>
>
> *Participant Preparation:*
>
> ·         The Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) learned,
> during its testing, that some amount of the group discussion is usefully
> directed at deepening participants’ knowledge of a project and to establish
> a common level of understanding.   Since time is constrained, it will be
> helpful if all participants are familiar with the 15 Eligible Projects and,
> at least, the brief descriptions provided at this link:
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf
> (See Table 1-Eligible Projects).
>
> ·         Participants should also refresh their recollections of the
> Value definition (below) as well as their individual ratings submitted
> during Step 2.   Note that these initial ratings, as defined by the WPM-DT,
> are intended to reflect perceived benefit/value to ICANN/GNSO and do not
> attempt to incorporate factors such as cost, difficulty, complexity, timing,
> or working group progress.  Those concerns will be addressed subsequently
> when the Council begins to manage the project workload based on the Value
> ratings.
>
> *“Value* … this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit,
> importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering
> ICANN’s stakeholders and the global Internet community.  Components of this
> dimension may include, but are not limited to:  new opportunities for
> Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement
> of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased
> security/stability, and improved user experience. “
>
>
>
> *Setup:*
>
> ·         Everyone participating (Councilors and Liaisons) should join the
> Adobe Connect room (URL link TBD) which has been designed to facilitate the
> group discussion, polling, and recording results.
>
> ·         Voice communication will be handled via telephone conference for
> anyone not attending the session in person (details to be released by the
> GNSO Secretariat).
>
> ·         Ken Bour, a Consultant to the ICANN Policy Staff and primary
> support to the WPM-DT, will facilitate the session.  In the interest of
> time, Ken will spend only a few minutes explaining how the Adobe Room is
> organized and making sure everyone understands how to take advantage of the
> tools.   It will be appreciated if attendees arrive a few minutes early to
> complete computer setup and other related logistics.
>
>
>
> *Introduction:*
>
> ·         19 participants provided individual ratings (Step 2) and those
> results will be displayed in the Adobe room along with color-coding to show
> the most popular ratings as well as top/bottom 10%.
>
> ·         To give you an cursory idea of the variability in the ratings,
> of the 15 Eligible Projects, the Range (Highest Rating – Lowest Rating)
> results are:
>
> o   11 projects or 73% have a Range >= 5 (e.g. 7-2 or 6-1)
>
> o   7 or 46% have a maximum Range = 6 (at least one 7 and one 1)
>
> ·         There were no projects that had a Range less than or equal to 2
> (minimum required to bypass the discussion); therefore, all 15 projects will
> be taken up during the session.
>
> ·         There will be no more than 3 rounds of discussion and polling
> for each project (see Process Flow below).
>
> ·         The goal for each project, through group discussion, is to
> reduce the ratings variability to the maximum extent possible in the time
> allotted.
>
>
>
> *Process Flow: *
>
> ·         Round 1:  As Ken introduces each project, he will start by
> asking the lowest and highest raters to provide brief rationale for their
> selections followed by group interaction.  When the discussion has reached
> some level of perceived closure, Ken will invite all participants to vote in
> the Adobe room, choosing a value between 1 and 7.   When everyone has voted,
> the poll will be closed and the results displayed (*not individually
> identified*).   If the resulting Range is <= 2, the median will be
> calculated as the final group rating for that project.  If the Range > 2, an
> additional round of discussion will take place by asking those furthest from
> the median to provide rationale.
>
> ·         Round 2 (if needed):  after another brief discussion,
> participants will be polled again as in Round 1.   If the Range <=3, the
> median will be computed and accepted as the group rating.
>
> ·         Round 3 (if needed):  same process as Round 2 except that,
> regardless of the Range outcome, the median will be computed and accepted as
> the group’s final rating.
>
> *Guiding Principles:*
>
> ·         The group discussion approach is built upon the foundation that
> everyone is willing, at least in principle, to move toward agreement.
>
> ·         During the discussion, no one should feel challenged to defend
> any position, rather explain his/her reasoning for the purposes of group
> learning and building agreement.
>
> ·         Participants should be mindful that there is an average of 7
> minutes available per project.   Concise statements and brief explanations
> (1-2 minutes) will be appreciated in order to complete the task in the time
> allotted.
>
>
>
> I wish the Council good luck in this endeavor and remain available to
> assist in any capacity that is deemed useful.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> David Olive
>
> V. P. – Policy Development
>
>
>