RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: DRAFT Resolution to Approve & Publish Final WPM Ratings

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

Whether we think another public comment period is needed or not I
encourage Olga is going to submit the motion today because of the motion
deadline of tomorrow. The motion can be changed or withdrawn if needed.

 

Regarding the comment period question, a comment period on the
prioritization process versus one on the results of the process is very
different.  But I think we also want input from the community on the
process itself after having tried it; that will help our evaluation and
improvement of the process.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:04 AM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Hoggarth; Liz Gasster
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: DRAFT Resolution to Approve & Publish
Final WPM Ratings

 

Hi,
I plan to submit this motion later today.
I am ok with the text, if there are any comments please let us know.
Regards
Olga

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

WPM-DT Members:

At Chuck's request, below is a draft Council Resolution to approve Step
3 and authorize Step 4 of the WPM timeline.   Your comments are welcome.


Olga has agreed to submit this motion.   Jaime or Wolf - would be
agreeable to second it once submitted on or before Tuesday, 15 June? 

Question:  should there be another 21-day community comment period for
the final Project Value Ratings resulting from Step 3?   I note that we
just completed a Public Comment Forum for the WPM procedures (closed 16
May).   One person provided relevant input which was supportive and only
inquired as to whether Liaisons would be able to participate (answered:
"Yes").   

Thanks,

Ken
===

GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a
resolution and timeline
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions>  to
conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of
procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> )
recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); 

WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the
first three of which have been completed as follows: 

1)      Step 1:  ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO
Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-e
n.pdf>  (v1.0), including a Cover Letter
<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-p
roject-list-30apr10-en.pdf> , on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20
May 2010 <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ]

2)      Step 2:  Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total)
submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects
(approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7
June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff
for input to Step 3; 

3)      Step 3:  The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group
discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully
finalized a set of Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects; 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization
Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June
2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO
website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.