[gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3 (Brussels)
- To: <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3 (Brussels)
- From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:27 -0400
Thanks, Chuck and Olga, for your supportive comments regarding the draft
letter. I will also be collecting feedback from my Policy Staff
colleagues. David has already confirmed that the letter can be sent out
over his name/title.
Olga, while I appreciate the value and need to engage the issues that have
been raised recently, I agree with Chuck that, at least for planning
purposes, we reserve the morning session on Saturday ONLY for Value Ratings
discussions. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we only have 7
minutes average for each project and, from our own WPM-DT testing, we know
that is how long it takes (the 1st time) - with only 5 participants! I
fear that, if we broach any other topics at the outset of Saturday's
session, we will run out of time and fail to accomplish the mission. If
that were to happen, we would have to allocate even MORE time to
prioritization at a future meeting and, quite possibly, cause the entire
process to be called into serious question. Certainly, if there is time
left over at the conclusion of the rating session (how relieved would I
be!), I think it would be fine to take up matters concerning the process.
As a point of order, I was planning to ask Chuck, in his role as Council
Chair, to remind participants that Saturday's session should be
laser-focused on implementing Step 3 of the WPM-DT's recommendations, as
approved by Council in April. There will be time, subsequently (e.g. 23
June Council meeting), to analyze/review/refine the process, entertain
ideas/suggestions, discuss the broader project management considerations,
and determine future next steps. [Note: my Brussels trip was only
authorized for a limited duration due to budget constraints; therefore, I
will be traveling home on 23 June and unable to attend that Council meeting.
I will, of course, listen intently to the MP3 recording and be prepared to
support any actions or recommendations that are approved].
In the interim, if the WPM-DT thinks that it should begin addressing the
questions/concerns raised via the email lists, I have provided Olga with
some responsive material for that purpose. Olga, if you would like me to
post those thoughts to the WPM-DT list, please so advise. Although I am
happy to provide counsel on any relevant WPM topic, my esteemed ICANN
colleagues have reminded me that Staff should remain in a supportive role
and defer substantive questions to the DT and its leadership.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:24 PM
To: Ken Bour; GNSO; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3
The letter looks good to me Ken.
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:28 PM
To: GNSO; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] DRAFT LETTER re: Work Prioritization-Step 3
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.
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
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:
. 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:
(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. "
. 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
. 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.
. 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
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.
. 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.
. 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
I wish the Council good luck in this endeavor and remain available to assist
in any capacity that is deemed useful.
V. P. - Policy Development