[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Next Steps

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thank you very much Charla and everyone who contributed to this. This is great work.

The Executive Summary looks very good to me but I do have four comments/suggestions:

1.       It says: "Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO."  Would it be more accurate to say "Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO relative to other factors."  At least in my case, possible positive impact on the GNSO was a big consideration but I tried to judge that in light of other facts when choosing a priority.  For example, it the impact might be very high but the cost and difficulty were also very high or chance of success was low, I lowered the priority.

2.       I think more explanation of the sorting would be helpful.  Overall I like the way it is sorted.  I support sorting by priority first but then I think we should describe how the items are sorted within a given priority.  In other words, I think it would be helpful to explain what the second, third and fourth sorts are as applicable.  I tried to figure it out but it wasn't readily obvious to me.  Am I correct that the primary sort is on WP priority and the second sort is on WP Revised Score?  Were there any sorts after that?  If so what were they?  Are there any sorts on color?  In other words, at the third or lower sort levels, assuming all other prior sort parameters are equal, what is the sort order for color (e.g., green first, yellow 2nd, orange 3rd and red last)?  It doesn't appear that there is a sort on color but if there is we should explain the order of the colors.

3.       I thought we agreed on the last call that we should explain how the WP Revised Score was calculated.  Did I miss that in the Executive Summary or on the spreadsheet itself?

4.       Some of the spreadsheet headings seem self-explanatory but I think it would be helpful if we provided brief definitions for the last three.  Also, I think we should change the "WP-Align w/ Strategic"  column heading would be self-explanatory if we  changed it to "WP-Align w/ Strategic Plan"

I believe that the more self-explanatory our documents can be the better, especially for Councilors, OEC members or Board members who may be absent during any presentations that are given.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:14 PM
To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org'
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Next Steps

Dear GNSO Review Working Party,

Members of the GNSO Review Working Party who participated in last week's call made significant progress and invite any other members of the Working Party to provide feedback on its Report "Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations" by close of business on 24 February.   This is in preparation for submitting the attached report to the GNSO Council for consideration at the 9 March meeting.  We will schedule a tentative call from 16:00-17:00 UTC on 25 February to discuss the feedback from the Working Party, should it be needed.

The attached document contains two worksheets (and is also available on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56138570>): the first worksheet is the Executive Summary, the second worksheet sorts the recommendations based on the Working Party's evaluation of several criteria:


*         Ease or difficulty of implementation

*         Cost of implementation

*         Whether it is aligned with the strategic direction of the GNSO

*         Whether it impacts existing work or other work

The Working Party categorized each of the recommendations in two parts.  Part One addressed whether the group agreed with the recommendation of the independent examiner (13 recommendations), did not agree (3 recommendations), agreed with modifications (6 recommendations) or determined that work was already underway in the GNSO (14 recommendations).  Part Two prioritized the recommendations as high, medium or low in terms of the impact it could have on the GNSO.

The spreadsheet is sorted by priority so you will see high priority recommendations first, medium priority recommendations in the second tier, and low priority or do not implement recommendations toward the bottom.

Below is an updated timeline:

[cid:image001.png at 01D16369.00F04FC0]
I look forward to your feedback by close of business on 24 February.

Regards,

Charla

Charla K. Shambley
Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives Program Manager
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA  90094
mobile: 310-745-1943

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20160210/5fda25ca/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75780 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20160210/5fda25ca/image001.png>