Hi Jaime
I’ve been thru so many formal priority
setting processes – using computers, sticky notes, ranking scales, etc
etc
I now think we can only do this in
discussion
What confuses me is trying to externalize and
express in advance my idea of “priorities”
All life is negotiation and this is another
example ……I think?????????
A baseline would be whether the projects
fit with the ICANN Strategic Plan and AoC but then how do we deal with the “bottom
up” nature of community project identification???
It’s what make ICANN such an
interesting beast!
Cheers
Rosemary
Rosemary Sinclair
Managing Director, ATUG
Chairman, INTUG
T: +61 2 94958901
F: +61 2 94193889
M: +61 413734490
Email: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au
Skype: rasinclair
Please visit the ATUG website
for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au
From: Jaime Wagner -
PowerSelf [mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br]
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2010
2:00 PM
To: Rosemary Sinclair
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RES: SPAM-LOW: Re:
[council] Prioritizatio process
Dear Rosemary,
The problem still
rests in the phrase “if priority is agreed”. How to do that without
a method to score relative value among all councilors?
Jaime
Wagner
jaime@powerself.com.br
Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51)
8126-0916
Geral (51)
3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366
De:
rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au [mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au]
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 18 de
novembro de 2010 10:53
Para: Stéphane Van Gelder;
owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; GNSO Council
Assunto: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re:
[council] Prioritizatio process
One other way to prioritise is to work backwards from
the available resources
If we combine this with a process of reviewing progress being made on policy
issues
we get to a practical assessment of what can be done with the resources
available and what priority the Community is indicating by its actions
So for me we need a process of identifying resources and reviewing progress
Issues that outstanding could be reviewed as part of the Strat Plan/Operations
planning process - and if priority is agreed, resources could be identified and
with the possible consequence that some projects may need to be wound up or
deferred..
Cheers
Rosemary
Sent
from my BlackBerry® from Optus
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:15:23 +1100
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf<jaime@powerself.com.br>
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'<cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] Prioritizatio process
Thanks Jaimie, and here's a short recap of what I was
saying, as Chuck requested:
- Keep a model-based approach but simplify.
- Council Leadership could play a part in suggesting
priority projects to Council, those suggestions based on model approach.
- Or we could take our thinking "outside the
box". One idea: use US Congress style system of wiping the slate clean at
the end of each calendar year. Others will no doubt have different ideas to
suggest as well.
Stéphane
Le 18 nov. 2010 à 13:09, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a
écrit :
Chuck,
As you asked me to
put in writing my thoughts shared during today’s call on prioritization
of GNSO work, here they are.
I would like the Council
to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because
of two benefits
1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work
going on;
2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of
consensus on the relative value of the different projects.
Jaime
Wagner
jaime@powerself.com.br
Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51)
8126-0916
Geral (51) 3233-3551
DDG: 0800-703-6366