Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

How would you suggest using the model already developed (ie making use of the 
work done to date as you suggest)?

The very reason we are wondering how to continue our prioritisation project is 
that people deemed the work done so far not to have produced the desired 
results. We can recognise that the group who undertook this work deserve a 
round of applause for their efforts while still considering that the result is 
not applicable to our needs.

That being the case, if you feel this work can be used going forward, I think 
it would help if you explained in greater detail how you think this can be 
done, so we can all understand what you have in mind.

Stéphane 

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 9 août 2010 à 12:39, "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Chuck,
> 
>  
> 
> My ‘other’ selection was formed on the same basis. I’d like to think that we 
> can at least make some use of the work completed to date and then we can 
> focus on making the process even more efficient and useful going forward.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: 07 August 2010 05:12
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
> 
>  
> 
> In follow-up to the poll we took in our Council meeting this past week 
> regarding GNSO project prioritization, for those that selected the “Other” 
> choice. Please respond on this list with a description of what your “Other” 
> choice is.
> 
> I will start of by repeating mine:  A combination of option 2 (use the 
> prioritization exercise results to make project decisions going forward) and 
> option 4 (improve the process).
> 
> For those who did not participate or did not vote, please feel free to submit 
> a new option if you have one.
> 
> Thanks, Chuck