Re: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Group Discussion - June 19 in Brussels

[David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mike and
GNSO Councilors:

While I appreciate the request for the ratings data in advance, the process 
that was envisioned by the WPM-Drafting Team calls for the summary information 
to be presented simultaneously at the group session.   As a result, we will not 
be able to provide this information in advance,  given other commitments and 
travel schedules.  The staff is still fine-tuning the information  and making 
needed adjustments in preparation for the Saturday session.

Having spent time working through this process myself, I can also advise you 
that no appreciable time would be saved by viewing the summary data in advance. 
  It is very straightforward and, for each project, should not take long to 
observe the patterns, which will be color-coded.

Perhaps a process change can be considered if, after this first session, 
Councilors think that having the data in advance would have been beneficial.

Best regards,         David

David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C.    20005
Office: 202.570.7126      Mobile:  202.341.3611

On 6/15/10 6:11 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks David, this looks like it will be useful, though perhaps optimistic to 
cover all 15 topics in less than 2 hours.

To perhaps speed things up in advance, can you provide the data that has been 
aggregated thus far?


Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of David Olive
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:28 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Group Discussion - June 19 in 
Brussels

GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:

In preparation for the GNSO Work Prioritization group discussion (Step 3) 
scheduled for Saturday, 19 June in Brussels (1100-1300; Room 311/312), 
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% response rate) and was able to aggregate 
the data successfully at the Council level.   Due to the variability among 
Councilor ratings, no projects could be exempted from the discussion; 
therefore, all 15 Eligible Projects will be covered during the Brussels 
session.   If we can limit preliminaries to 15 minutes or less, that will leave 
105 minutes for 15 projects or approximately 7 minutes each!   In order to 
complete the work in that short timeframe, it will be important for all 
participants to be prepared and aware of time.

The following material contains basic information so that these matters do not 
delay us during the Brussels session:

Participant Preparation:

 *   The Work Prioritization procedures (Chapter 6.0 and ANNEX 
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ) may be 
reviewed although it is not required.   Each step of the process will be 
explained during the session (see Setup below).
 *   The Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) learned, during its 
testing, that it is useful to briefly discuss each project to deepen 
participants’ knowledge and to establish a common level of understanding.   
Since time is short, it will be helpful if all participants are familiar with 
the 15 Eligible Projects and Descriptions 
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>  
(See Table 1 & Glossary).   A printed copy of this document will be made 
available to each Councilor on Saturday morning.
 *   Participants should also review the Value definition (below) and their 
individual ratings submitted during Step 2.   Please note that the 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, among others, 
will be addressed subsequently when the Council begins to manage the project 
workload based on the Value prioritization.

Definition:  “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:

 *   To take maximum advantage of the tools, everyone participating (Councilors 
and Liaison) should join the Adobe Connect room (URL link will be provided) 
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 logistics.

Discussion Overview:

 *   19 participants provided individual ratings (Step 2) and those results 
will be displayed in the Adobe Connect room along with color-coding to show the 
most popular ratings as well as top/bottom 10%.   A printed handout will also 
be provided.
 *   There were no projects that had a Range (Highest minus Lowest Rating) less 
than or equal to 2, which was the minimum required to bypass the discussion; 
therefore, all 15 projects will be taken up during the session.
 *   The goal of the discussion is to reach greater agreement, where possible, 
in the time allotted and to note cases where divergent views remain.   Although 
simple statistics will be utilized as part of the process, there is no 
requirement to achieve any particular numerical value.  When the group has 
completed discussing a particular project, whatever final ratings variability 
exists will be accepted and recorded.
 *   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.

Process Flow:
There will be no more than 3 rounds of discussion and polling for each project.
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 all 
participants come to the session willing and able, in principle, to change 
their understandings and ratings (as submitted in Step 2) if persuaded by 
rationale and learning.
 *   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.

I wish the Council good luck in this endeavor and remain available to assist in 
any capacity that is deemed useful.

Regards,

David


David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
ICANN
1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C.    20005
Office: 202.570.7126      Cell:  202.341.3611