RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Participant Comments Regarding Step 2

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

If Councilors want to ask questions on the list about how to participate in the 
process in our current exercises, that would be fine and we should engage in 
the discussion.  But with all that all of us have to do to prepare for 
Brussels, I question whether we have time to start discussing issues and 
concerns about the process itself.  I think at best we should capture all of 
those and I think that is where you can help us Ken.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:03 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Participant Comments Regarding Step 2

 

WPM-DT Members:

 

I provided a few thoughts privately to Olga in support of her beginning to 
address the comments/concerns expressed recently on the GNSO Council list.   
She advised me to post them here for team consideration.   

 

The following paragraphs are intended to be exploratory responses in the spirit 
of continuing the dialogue, not definitive answers.   

Please feel free to comment, revise, or amplify as you deem appropriate.   

 

Concerning Stéphane's recent comments, the WPM-DT noted in its cover letter to 
the Council that the larger project management question was one that would have 
to be tackled subsequent to the prioritization effort.   In its letter to the 
Council transmitting the WPM procedures, Olga noted: 

 

"The DT believes that prioritization is an important first step of the 
Council's broader project management role, which should be further defined and 
will require appropriate tools to assist in the active and effective management 
of the workload.  To facilitate these managerial responsibilities, the DT 
recommends that: 

1)      a process be developed to allow timely tracking of GNSO projects on an 
on-going basis; and 

2)      its process be supported with a web-based software toolkit (e.g. 
excellent open source applications are available) that will assign Staff and 
Community resources to projects/tasks and offer time/milestone tracking plus 
advanced collaboration capabilities allowing work to be managed efficiently, 
effectively, and transparently.  

 

The DT remains available to assist the Council in the implementation of these 
new Work Prioritization procedures and to work with any other team(s) on 
scoping out the program/project management disciplines that will become central 
in the Council's role as manager of the policy development process."  

 

While Stéphane certainly raises important implementation questions that the 
WPM-DT also identified, they were considered beyond the scope of the WPM's 
narrow mission.   Presumably, once a set of project ratings is finalized in 
Brussels, the Council will begin to take up the broader considerations that are 
essential to the effective utilization of this initial prioritization work.  

 

In a similar vein, Alan's comments appear to come from a "managerial" 
perspective in looking at the project workload and, while understandable, the 
instructions were drafted to ask participants to rate Value only.   The 
narrowly drawn Value definition was provided in the transmittal email to the 
ratings spreadsheet as well as in the Chapter 6 and ANNEX 
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>  
procedures provided to the Council.   As team members know, that definition 
intentionally did not contemplate factors such as how near a project is to 
completion or how many resources it is consuming, only its benefit to ICANN and 
the GNSO.   Originally, as you will recall, the team thoroughly evaluated a 
two-dimensional model that attempted to capture costs, difficulty, even 
urgency.   After working through the implications of that substantially more 
complex modeling process, the team elected to start with a more straightforward 
assessment of Value as the first step.  

 

Lastly, I am a bit disappointed to learn, in the aftermath of the ratings 
process, that some individuals might have been confused as they were attempting 
to decide on specific project ratings.   I tried to make myself available both 
by phone and email; however, no one reached out for assistance or 
clarification.   I am certain that, in addition to Staff, any of the WPM-DT's 
members would have gladly helped anyone who was confused about the assignment.  
  

 

I am looking forward to the session in Brussels!   A few of my Staff colleagues 
will be helping me perform a "practice" run later today using the same Adobe 
Connect features that the team exercised back in December.   I am hopeful that 
the process we identified and tested many months ago continues to hold up when 
extended to a much larger population...  J  

 

Does the team think it should begin engaging the recent questions and issues 
via the Council email list and, if so, is there anything else I can provide by 
way of assistance?    

 

Regards,

 

Ken Bour