RE: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, if I could throw it back Stéphane, when you say that the work done so far 
did not produce the ‘desired results’, what is meant by that? What were our 
needs and what was the objective? [and I apologize for lacking some of the 
history here, as I believe this effort started before I joined the Council]. 
Surely we managed as a group to identify some projects of agreed high 
importance and my thinking was to use that information when we face decisions 
around prioritizing work – be that time spent by Council on a particular topic 
at a meeting or whatever. For example, do the Chairs need / use that sort of 
information when drafting meeting agendas, allocating time etc?

 

What was the expected output of this project – how can we all have got to the 
end of this very long effort and have failed so miserably in the eyes of some, 
to the extent that we cannot salvage anything useful whatsoever? I agree that 
the process seemed rather laborious and complex but was there not some general 
agreement on some aspects? 

 

I should add at this point that I unfortunately has to miss the Saturday 
session in Brussels that was devoted to the Work Prioritization effort and so 
do not have the benefit of that Council discussion either and I failed to see 
the project’s final stages in action. However, it would be useful for me to 
hear again what went so disastrously wrong in the opinion of some – was it the 
complexity / amount of effort spent relative to the value of the project (in 
which case we can probably all agree on that but look to the results anyway and 
try to use them in some way) or the process (ie, was it flawed in some way? If 
we all agree on that, then yes, we should scrap the results that we have). 
Alternatively, do we simply not know what to now do with the results, in which 
case that requires group discussion in my opinion.

 

Many thanks,

 

Caroline.

 

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 09 August 2010 12:46
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization

 

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