Please see below Stéphane. Chuck From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 10:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Caroline Greer; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Project Prioritization 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?[Gomes, Chuck] The drafting team knew that that question would have to be considered and decided that that should be a Council activity not a DT action. “What now” was supposed to be the next step so it does not indicate failure at all. As for the reasons for this failure, in my view the system devised was way too complex. Both to implement and to execute.[Gomes, Chuck] I believe that part is fixable. In fact some of us have already been thinking of ways to make it a lot simpler and less time consuming. 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.[Gomes, Chuck] Your clarification here is very helpful. The chair cannot be put in a situation to make prioritization decisions in a bottom-up organization, but providing leadership with regard to priorities that have already been set (e.g., the current results) along with other critical information sounds reasonable. How about steps like these as a first crack: [Gomes, Chuck] The next time we decide to initiate a new project or even to request an Issues report for a new project we do something like this: 1. Review the results of the prioritization exercise 2. Identify any projects that have ended or will shortly end 3. Try to develop a very high level estimate of the availability of community and staff resources at this time 4. Determine whether there would be any impact on existing projects (e.g., slow some down, defer some, etc.) 5. Using the data above, evaluate whether it makes sense to take the next step (Issues Report or WG initiation) at this time or defer it. The chair could take the lead on this with the help of key parties and provide a report and possibly advice to the Council. 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@verisign.com> 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@mtld.mobi] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:18 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org 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@indom.com] Sent: 09 August 2010 12:46 To: Caroline Greer Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@mtld.mobi> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 07 August 2010 05:12 To: council@gnso.icann.org 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