RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf,

 

As far as the exercise goes, I don't think it matters one way or the
other whether the individual ratings are made public or not, but I could
be wrong on that.  That may be a point we want to discuss when we
evaluate the process for improvements.  In the meantime, I suggest that
each person do what they are comfortable with.

 

Chuck

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 1:39 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [liaison6c] RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort:
STEP 2

 

I'm not sure whether the rating should have been made public by
ourselves or in total by Ken after we've submitted it.

I've sent mine already to Ken and would put it to the list if
applicable.

 

 

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

         

        
________________________________


        Von: owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 20:34
        An: Ken Bour; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: GNSO; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: [liaison6c] RE: [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)