GNSO Council Members and Liaisons:
 
In preparation for the GNSO Work Prioritization group discussion (Step 3) scheduled for Saturday, 19 June in Brussels (1100-1300; Room 311/312), Councilors are encouraged to review the following material, in advance, so that a maximum amount of the two hours available can be devoted to the ratings discussion.   
 
I am pleased to report that, at the conclusion of Step 2 (9 June), Staff received 19 individual ratings (90% response rate) and was able to aggregate the data successfully at the Council level.   Due to the variability among Councilor ratings, no projects could be exempted from the discussion; therefore, all 15 Eligible Projects will be covered during the Brussels session.   If we can limit preliminaries to 15 minutes or less, that will leave 105 minutes for 15 projects or approximately 7 minutes each!   In order to complete the work in that short timeframe, it will be important for all participants to be prepared and aware of time.  
 
The following material contains basic information so that these matters do not delay us during the Brussels session:  
 
Participant Preparation:

• The Work Prioritization procedures (Chapter 6.0 and ANNEX <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> ) may be reviewed although it is not required.   Each step of the process will be explained during the session (see Setup below).  
• The Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT) learned, during its testing, that it is useful to briefly discuss each project to deepen participants’ knowledge and to establish a common level of understanding.   Since time is short, it will be helpful if all participants are familiar with the 15 Eligible Projects and Descriptions <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>  (See Table 1 & Glossary).   A printed copy of this document will be made available to each Councilor on Saturday morning.
• Participants should also review the Value definition (below) and their individual ratings submitted during Step 2.   Please note that the ratings, as defined by the WPM-DT, are intended to reflect perceived benefit/value to ICANN/GNSO and do not attempt to incorporate factors such as cost, difficulty, complexity, timing, or working group progress.  Those concerns, among others, will be addressed subsequently when the Council begins to manage the project workload based on the Value prioritization.  
  

Definition:  “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.“

Setup:

• To take maximum advantage of the tools, everyone participating (Councilors and Liaison) should join the Adobe Connect room (URL link will be provided) which has been designed to facilitate the group discussion, polling, and recording results.  
• Voice communication will be handled via telephone conference for anyone not attending the session in person (details to be released by the GNSO Secretariat).
• Ken Bour, a Consultant to the ICANN Policy Staff and primary support to the WPM-DT, will facilitate the session.  In the interest of time, Ken will spend only a few minutes explaining how the Adobe Room is organized and making sure everyone understands how to take advantage of the tools.   It will be appreciated if attendees arrive a few minutes early to complete computer setup and other logistics.   
  

Discussion Overview:

• 19 participants provided individual ratings (Step 2) and those results will be displayed in the Adobe Connect room along with color-coding to show the most popular ratings as well as top/bottom 10%.   A printed handout will also be provided.  
• There were no projects that had a Range (Highest minus Lowest Rating) less than or equal to 2, which was the minimum required to bypass the discussion; therefore, all 15 projects will be taken up during the session.  
• The goal of the discussion is to reach greater agreement, where possible, in the time allotted and to note cases where divergent views remain.   Although simple statistics will be utilized as part of the process, there is no requirement to achieve any particular numerical value.  When the group has completed discussing a particular project, whatever final ratings variability exists will be accepted and recorded.  
• Participants should be mindful that there is an average of 7 minutes available per project.   Concise statements and brief explanations (1-2 minutes) will be appreciated in order to complete the task in the time allotted.  
  

Process Flow:
There will be no more than 3 rounds of discussion and polling for each project.
Round 1:  As Ken introduces each project, he will start by asking the lowest and highest raters to provide brief rationale for their selections followed by group interaction.  When the discussion has reached some level of perceived closure, Ken will invite all participants to vote in the Adobe room, choosing a value between 1 and 7.   When everyone has voted, the poll will be closed and the results displayed (not individually identified).   If the resulting Range is <= 2, the median will be calculated as the final group rating for that project.  If the Range > 2, an additional round of discussion will take place by asking those furthest from the median to provide rationale.  
Round 2 (if needed):  after another brief discussion, participants will be polled again as in Round 1.   If the Range <=3, the median will be computed and accepted as the group rating.   
Round 3 (if needed):  same process as Round 2 except that, regardless of the Range outcome, the median will be computed and accepted as the group’s final rating.  
Guiding Principles:

• The group discussion approach is built upon the foundation that all participants come to the session willing and able, in principle, to change their understandings and ratings (as submitted in Step 2) if persuaded by rationale and learning.  
• During the discussion, no one should feel challenged to defend any position, rather explain his/her reasoning for the purposes of group learning and building agreement.   
  

I wish the Council good luck in this endeavor and remain available to assist in any capacity that is deemed useful.  
 
Regards,

David


David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
ICANN
1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C.    20005
Office: 202.570.7126      Cell:  202.341.3611