ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 (Status)

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2 (Status)
  • From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:52:28 -0400
  • Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO" <gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQIXuVGZROoy38DgyWD5LlUP4S4Z+g==

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:

 

As promised in my original email, I would send out interim status reports on
Step 2 of the GNSO Work Prioritization effort.   I had not received any
participant spreadsheets after the first week (28 May), so I decided to wait
a bit longer before writing to you.   With only 5 days remaining until the
deadline (7 June), we still have no submissions, which may only indicate
that your work is still in progress.   

 

In the event that anyone needs another copy, I am including the original
email transmittal (below) and template (att?d).  

 

If anyone needs assistance in completing this task or more time, please let
me know.   

 

Thank you,

 

Ken Bour

 

Office:  703-430-4059 (EST)

 

From: owner-gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:08 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: GNSO; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-imp-staff] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2

 

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:

 

In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council
on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows:

 


Step

Dates

Activity

Status


Step 1

30 April ? 20 May

Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st
Work Prioritization effort

Completed


Step 2

21 May ? 7 June

Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for
commonality analysis (18 days)

In Progress


Step 3

19 June (Brussels)

Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings

Scheduled


Step 4

23 June (Brussels)

Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at
gnso.icann.org

Scheduled

 

The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit
from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value
ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1.   

 

The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization
Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter 6 and ANNEX
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ), is
quoted below:

?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. ?

 

In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for
each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the
following 7-point scale.   [Note:  the scale is also duplicated in the
attachment for ease of reference].  

 


Scale

Interpretation

        

1

Far Below


2

Moderately Below


3

Slightly Below


4

Average


5

Slightly Above


6

Moderately Above


7

Far Above

 

Scale Guideline:

 

As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, Section 2.2
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ),
the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in
developing Value ratings.  

?Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more)
represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in
Section 6.3.2.  For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project
?X? is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others.
Once you have ?anchored? your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a
matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately
Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that
?average? project in terms of this factor.  

If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider
anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project
you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value.  

In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents
-- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other.?

 

Note:  Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to
ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as
possible. 

 

Instructions:

 

Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template)
that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception
of relative Value.   Directions are contained inside the template.   Please
enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form.
Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as
explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet.   

 

***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against
accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating
sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation***

 

Expected Output:

 

The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your
individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor
agreement on the Value ratings.   The data will be used as input to the Step
3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June.


 

If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email
or call me.   I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May
and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity.   

 

Good luck with your ratings!  

 

Ken Bour

Policy Staff Consultant

 

Email:  ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx

Office:  703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST) 

 

Attachment: GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template (Final).xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>