Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My sense is that we need a quasi-budgeting process, where the scarce
resource is our time and that of our stakeholder group members and ICANN
staff.  The prioritization effort was useful to the extent it forced us
to consider all the elements already on our agenda.  I don't believe it
gave us Council consensus on which issues were priorities.

To progress further, I'd suggest that we need to address tradeoffs, not
mere preferences: Given our fixed bucket of time and resources, how much
do our stakeholder groups want us to allocate to existing and proposed
new efforts?  Would pursuing new issues bring new resources to the table
(perhaps by engaging different groups within our membership) or should
we deprioritize some existing efforts?

I hope the chair can use some of that in framing our future issue
consideration.

--Wendy

On 08/09/2010 10:26 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Chuck,
> 
> The only reason I am saying the effort failed is that we are now considering 
> alternatives as a way forward, as per our last meeting's agenda.
> 
> Absent a feeling that the effort failed, why would the question of "what now" 
> even be asked?
> 
> As for the reasons for this failure, in my view the system devised was way 
> too complex. Both to implement and to execute.
> 
> I still favour what Adrian first proposed: that the Chair lead the decision 
> making process as to what tasks are prioritised. Now in this, I am not 
> suggesting that the Chair take it upon himself to allocate priority to 
> existing GNSO projects. I am saying that the Chair could act as a custodian 
> of GNSO resources and if a new project comes in and resources are lacking to 
> deal with it, then the Chair either asks the council to put the project aside 
> until the resources become available to deal with it, or asks the council 
> which other project should be delayed in order to deal with the new project 
> coming in.
> 
> In my view, this would be a way of applying good management to our work, 
> while still making sure that if new projects are deemed important enough by 
> the council, they can still be undertaken.
> 
> This was the main gist behind my "other" on the poll.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
> 
> Le 9 août 2010 à 15:21, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
>> Let me try again.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks for the thoughtful comments Caroline.  You say below, “. . . 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)”.  Why should we necessarily scrap 
>> the process just because it was flawed in some way?  If we think that the 
>> flaws caused invalid results, I would agree, but if not, why not try to 
>> improve the process by fixing the flaws?
>>
>>  
>>
>> If there are those who think the results are invalid, please help me 
>> understand why you think that?  I can understand that some may believe that 
>> the results may not provide as much direction as hoped, but that does not 
>> mean they are invalid.  I can also understand that some may think that the 
>> value of the results might not justify the level of effort expended, but 
>> again, that does not make the results invalid.  Regarding the first 
>> scenario, it was stated up front that the process did not cover how to use 
>> the results and that the Council would have to work on that.  Regarding the 
>> second scenario, maybe the level of effort could be reduced to be more 
>> commensurate with the end product.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I personally don’t believe that the results provide a magic bullet but I 
>> didn’t expect them to.  At the same time I sincerely believe that they 
>> provide us information that we could use in conjunction with other 
>> information as we consider whether to initiate new projects in the coming 
>> months.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:18 AM
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/