RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Group Discussion - June 19 in Brussels

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Excellent request - esp. since most of us have 8+ hours of travel
(reading) time ahead of us and will have time to review.
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:11 PM
        To: 'David Olive'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Group Discussion
- June 19 in Brussels
        
        

        Thanks David, this looks like it will be useful, though perhaps
optimistic to cover all 15 topics in less than 2 hours.

         

        To perhaps speed things up in advance, can you provide the data
that has been aggregated thus far?

         

        Mike Rodenbaugh

        RODENBAUGH LAW

        tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

        http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Olive
        Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:28 PM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Group Discussion -
June 19 in Brussels

         

        GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:
         
        In preparation for the GNSO Work Prioritization group discussion
(Step 3) scheduled for Saturday, 19 June in Brussels (1100-1300; Room
311/312), Councilors are encouraged to review the following material, in
advance, so that a maximum amount of the two hours available can be
devoted to the ratings discussion.   
         
        I am pleased to report that, at the conclusion of Step 2 (9
June), Staff received 19 individual ratings (90% response rate) and was
able to aggregate the data successfully at the Council level.   Due to
the variability among Councilor ratings, no projects could be exempted
from the discussion; therefore, all 15 Eligible Projects will be covered
during the Brussels session.   If we can limit preliminaries to 15
minutes or less, that will leave 105 minutes for 15 projects or
approximately 7 minutes each!   In order to complete the work in that
short timeframe, it will be important for all participants to be
prepared and aware of time.  
         
        The following material contains basic information so that these
matters do not delay us during the Brussels session:  
         
        Participant Preparation:

        *       The Work Prioritization procedures (Chapter 6.0 and
ANNEX
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> )
may be reviewed although it is not required.   Each step of the process
will be explained during the session (see Setup below).   
        *       The Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT)
learned, during its testing, that it is useful to briefly discuss each
project to deepen participants' knowledge and to establish a common
level of understanding.   Since time is short, it will be helpful if all
participants are familiar with the 15 Eligible Projects and Descriptions
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-e
n.pdf>  (See Table 1 & Glossary).   A printed copy of this document will
be made available to each Councilor on Saturday morning. 
        *       Participants should also review the Value definition
(below) and their individual ratings submitted during Step 2.   Please
note that the ratings, as defined by the WPM-DT, are intended to reflect
perceived benefit/value to ICANN/GNSO and do not attempt to incorporate
factors such as cost, difficulty, complexity, timing, or working group
progress.  Those concerns, among others, will be addressed subsequently
when the Council begins to manage the project workload based on the
Value prioritization.   

        Definition:  "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."
        
        Setup:

        *       To take maximum advantage of the tools, everyone
participating (Councilors and Liaison) should join the Adobe Connect
room (URL link will be provided) which has been designed to facilitate
the group discussion, polling, and recording results.   
        *       Voice communication will be handled via telephone
conference for anyone not attending the session in person (details to be
released by the GNSO Secretariat). 
        *       Ken Bour, a Consultant to the ICANN Policy Staff and
primary support to the WPM-DT, will facilitate the session.  In the
interest of time, Ken will spend only a few minutes explaining how the
Adobe Room is organized and making sure everyone understands how to take
advantage of the tools.   It will be appreciated if attendees arrive a
few minutes early to complete computer setup and other logistics.    

        
        Discussion Overview:

        *       19 participants provided individual ratings (Step 2) and
those results will be displayed in the Adobe Connect room along with
color-coding to show the most popular ratings as well as top/bottom 10%.
A printed handout will also be provided.   
        *       There were no projects that had a Range (Highest minus
Lowest Rating) less than or equal to 2, which was the minimum required
to bypass the discussion; therefore, all 15 projects will be taken up
during the session.   
        *       The goal of the discussion is to reach greater
agreement, where possible, in the time allotted and to note cases where
divergent views remain.   Although simple statistics will be utilized as
part of the process, there is no requirement to achieve any particular
numerical value.  When the group has completed discussing a particular
project, whatever final ratings variability exists will be accepted and
recorded.   
        *       Participants should be mindful that there is an average
of 7 minutes available per project.   Concise statements and brief
explanations (1-2 minutes) will be appreciated in order to complete the
task in the time allotted.   

        
        Process Flow: 
        There will be no more than 3 rounds of discussion and polling
for each project. 
        Round 1:  As Ken introduces each project, he will start by
asking the lowest and highest raters to provide brief rationale for
their selections followed by group interaction.  When the discussion has
reached some level of perceived closure, Ken will invite all
participants to vote in the Adobe room, choosing a value between 1 and
7.   When everyone has voted, the poll will be closed and the results
displayed (not individually identified).   If the resulting Range is <=
2, the median will be calculated as the final group rating for that
project.  If the Range > 2, an additional round of discussion will take
place by asking those furthest from the median to provide rationale.  
        Round 2 (if needed):  after another brief discussion,
participants will be polled again as in Round 1.   If the Range <=3, the
median will be computed and accepted as the group rating.   
        Round 3 (if needed):  same process as Round 2 except that,
regardless of the Range outcome, the median will be computed and
accepted as the group's final rating.  
        Guiding Principles:

        *       The group discussion approach is built upon the
foundation that all participants come to the session willing and able,
in principle, to change their understandings and ratings (as submitted
in Step 2) if persuaded by rationale and learning.   
        *       During the discussion, no one should feel challenged to
defend any position, rather explain his/her reasoning for the purposes
of group learning and building agreement.    

        
        I wish the Council good luck in this endeavor and remain
available to assist in any capacity that is deemed useful.  
         
        Regards,
        
        David 
        
        
        David A. Olive
        Vice President, Policy Development Support
        ICANN
        1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C.    20005
        Office: 202.570.7126      Cell:  202.341.3611