ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2

  • To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:34:27 -0400
  • Cc: "GNSO" <gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <002501caf8e6$b1a55750$14f005f0$@verizon.net>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <002501caf8e6$b1a55750$14f005f0$@verizon.net>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQEO7rNVML0BxIO2ozFH10AilFa/GJPqSyPw
  • Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2

Ken,

 

Please find my ratings attached.

 

Chuck

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:08 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: GNSO; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] 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: Prioritization Ratings from Gomes 4 June 10.xls
Description: Prioritization Ratings from Gomes 4 June 10.xls



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