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

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

Olga,

 

Are you suggesting that we allow time for evaluation of the process at
the end?  If there is time allowed, that is fine, but keep in mind that
that is probably unlikely and that we will devote time in subsequent
meetings for evaluation of the process.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:09 PM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: GNSO; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3
(Brussels)

 

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