Re: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
Ken, these are my ratings. Regards and have a nice weekend. Olga 2010/5/21 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 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:
OCC-GNSO Project Ratings.cls.xls
|