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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf,
We must remember this is an excersice we are doing for the first time, I
think it is ok to share the information but other councillors may keep it in
a private communication with Ken.
I agree with Chuck that we can discuss it and improve the process with the
experience.
Regards
Olga

2010/6/5 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)
>
>
>
>