Wolf,
As far as the exercise goes, I don’t think it matters one way or the other whether the individual ratings are made public or not, but I could be wrong on that. That may be a point we want to discuss when we evaluate the process for improvements. In the meantime, I suggest that each person do what they are comfortable with.
Chuck
From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 1:39 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@verizon.net; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-imp-staff@icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org
Subject: AW: [liaison6c] RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
I'm not sure whether the rating should have been made public by ourselves or in total by Ken after we've submitted it.
I've sent mine already to Ken and would put it to the list if applicable.
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 20:34
An: Ken Bour; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: GNSO; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org
Betreff: [liaison6c] RE: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2Ken,
Please find my ratings attached.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:08 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: GNSO; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort: STEP 2
GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:
In accordance with the Work Prioritization timeline approved by the Council on 21 April 2010, four major steps were identified as follows:
Step
Dates
Activity
Status
Step 1
30 April – 20 May
Staff recommend and Council approve a set of Eligible Projects for the 1st Work Prioritization effort
Completed
Step 2
21 May – 7 June
Individual Councilor ratings completed and delivered to Staff for commonality analysis (18 days)
In Progress
Step 3
19 June (Brussels)
Group Session (2 hours) to determine Value ratings
Scheduled
Step 4
23 June (Brussels)
Approve final ratings/priorities and direct that results be published at gnso.icann.org
Scheduled
The purpose of this email is to formally launch Step 2, which is to solicit from each GNSO Council member and participating Liaison individual Value ratings for each of the Eligible Projects approved in Step 1.
The definition of Value, as provided in the proposed Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) procedures (Chapter 6 and ANNEX), is quoted below:
“Value … this factor relates to perceptions of overall value, benefit, importance, and criticality primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN’s stakeholders and the global Internet community. Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to: new opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience. “
In this task, each Councilor is asked to rate the above Value component for each of the 15 Eligible Projects (see attached spreadsheet) using the following 7-point scale. [Note: the scale is also duplicated in the attachment for ease of reference].
Scale
Interpretation
1
Far Below
2
Moderately Below
3
Slightly Below
4
Average
5
Slightly Above
6
Moderately Above
7
Far Above
Scale Guideline:
As provided in the proposed WPM-DT procedures (ANNEX, Section 2.2), the following guidelines are intended to assist Council members in developing Value ratings.
“Thinking about all Eligible Projects taken together, which one (or more) represents your best perception of AVERAGE in terms of Value as defined in Section 6.3.2. For example, suppose that you happen to think that Project “X” is an AVERAGE project in terms of Value compared to all the others. Once you have “anchored” your perceptual scale in this way, then it is a matter of deciding whether the other projects are Far Below, Moderately Below, Slightly Below, Slightly Above, Moderately Above, or Far Above that “average” project in terms of this factor.
If you find it challenging to decide on an AVERAGE project, consider anchoring at either of the scale extremes, that is, determine which project you think is FAR ABOVE or FAR BELOW all of the others in terms of Value.
In this rating process, there are no absolute or independent scale referents -- you are being asked to assess projects RELATIVE to each other.“
Note: Councilors are encouraged to consult with their organizations to ensure that the ratings reflect the priorities of their groups as much as possible.
Instructions:
Attached is an Excel Template (GNSO Project Prioritization Rating Template) that you will use to rate each Eligible Project according to your perception of relative Value. Directions are contained inside the template. Please enter your Name in the space provided and the Date you complete the form. Please do not forget to <Save As> the completed form to another name as explained and illustrated inside the spreadsheet.
***Please note that all unshaded cells are protected (i.e. locked) against accidental mistyping; it is also important that the project and value rating sequence be maintained to facilitate data aggregation***
Expected Output:
The outcome of this activity, once Staff receives and processes all of your individual ratings, will be an initial statistical assessment of Councilor agreement on the Value ratings. The data will be used as input to the Step 3 group discussion that is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 19 June.
If you have questions about any of this material, please feel free to email or call me. I will provide periodic updates to the Council (e.g. 28 May and 4 June) outlining the progress of this activity.
Good luck with your ratings!
Ken Bour
Policy Staff Consultant
Email: ken.bour@verizon.net
Office: 703-430-4059 (USA-Virginia EST)