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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ken, thanks for your email.
Ok with the purpose of the meeting on Sunday, I just made a comment.
If you can send some material for these concerns that would be great.
Thanks, nice weekend and good flights to Brussels.
Regards
Olga


2010/6/11 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *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
> (Brussels)
>
>
>
> The letter looks good to me Ken.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *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
> (Brussels)
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>