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