[Gnso-rpm-trademark] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

In prepping for tomorrow's calls, I note how the "load management"
experiment of this past week has been a smashing success! By stepping
aside to allow others the opportunity to "show their stuff" and
"shine", we had the following input into the Google Docs this week:

TM Claims: Kathy Kleiman, Susan Payne, Rebecca Tushnet
Sunrise: Greg Shatan, Susan Payne, David McAuley, Michael Karanicolas

Kudos to those above for stepping into the spotlight this week!

I did have about 2 pages of notes worth of additional input beyond
that provided by the above members, but can provide that orally on the
calls tomorrow.

Due to that enormous success, I suggest that Kristine, Griffin and
myself should seriously consider engaging in another week of "load
management", to let even more people shine next week! :-)

Take care,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:59 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> FYI, I've perused next week's assigned homework. Despite the
> objections over the past couple of weeks, the workload has actually
> been *increased*! We appear to be in some Bizarro World:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
>
> where everything is inverted.
>
> Based on length and word density compared to past assignments, I'd
> expect that it would take 8 to 10 hours to read, analyze and compile
> into the 19 Google docs (the "read" past is the easiest). This is on
> top of the 90 minutes to 2 hours of prep time before calls (to review
> input), and the 2 hour calls themselves (which might be 2.5 hours this
> coming week).
>
> Even based on past homework assignments, we know only a handful of
> people (Kristine, Kathy, Griffin and myself) were filling out the
> Google Docs. It was suggested on the past call that folks were "doing
> the homework, but had nothing more to add than had already been
> input." To me, that appears completely indistinguishable from someone
> who didn't do the homework at all.
>
> So, next week will be different. There's a concept in the NBA called
> "load management", where the star players are rested, to ensure they
> have high energy for the playoffs:
>
> http://www.nba.com/article/2019/02/02/lebron-james-out-vs-warriors
>
> For this coming week, I will do the exact "median" input  provided by
> the rest of the sub teams for all the past weeks in the Google Docs
> spreadsheet, which was **zero**. This will give others the opportunity
> to "show their stuff" and "shine", because there will be no baseline
> input provided by me. I would suggest to Kristine, Kathy and Griffin
> that they might want to consider doing the same, to let others shine,
> lest they crowd out the efforts of others who've been pining to fill
> out the Google Docs, but "had nothing more to add". Apparently, it's
> such an easy job, and I wouldn't want to crowd out the visibility of
> their to date unseen Herculean efforts.
>
> I'll resume my input into the Google Docs only when the Section 3.7
> appeal is properly dealt with. Until then, I'll join with the majority
> and input the exact same amount into the Google Docs as they are doing
> (namely zero).
>
> I'll be watching Gladiator and Spartacus this weekend!
>
> Have a great weekend! ;-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 12:24 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi fellow sub team members,
> >
> > Since my concerns haven't been addressed on the main mailing list, I'm
> > being compelled to file a Section 3.7 appeal shortly (probably later
> > today, or tomorrow), in order to make sure that we have the
> > resources/time we need to actually do the work. The section 3.7 appeal
> > is meant to be constructive, not to obstruct our work, but to call to
> > the attention of the "powers that be" the realities on the ground that
> > they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring. In preparing my notes
> > for the Section 3.7 appeal, I thought I'd share with you some data.
> >
> > For those who haven't started this week's "homework" yet, the 4
> > documents (first 4; 8 more to go) amount to approximately 27 pages.
> > Those need to be read, analyzed, and then cross-referenced against the
> > Charter questions.
> >
> > For TM Claims, there are 5 charter questions (some with multiple
> > sub-parts in the them). For Sunrise, there are 12 charter questions, a
> > preamble, and Q5 was broken into 2 parts, so 14 documents used for the
> > cross-referencing, again, some with multiple sub-parts. So, for those
> > on both sub teams, that's a total of 19 documents where we need to be
> > potentially submitting inputs/analysis/citations.
> >
> > For those who've actually attempted this in the past, especially in
> > depth (I've named names earlier in this thread, but the core group so
> > far has really been Griffin, Kristine, Kathy and myself), you know
> > first hand how time consuming this is. I think despite this, this
> > week's homework is doable (in say 4 hours or less).
> >
> > BUT, if you've not done this already, open the other 8 links (i.e. the
> > other 8 documents), and see what's coming up, namely more than 250
> > more pages (some of it single-spaced!) [e.g. 67 + 2 + 3 pages for the
> > Analysis Group stuff, 20 + 74 pages for INTA, and so on]
> >
> > If you've not fainted yet, let me repeat, that's 250+ more pages (not
> > counting the 27 pages for this week).
> >
> > For those still with us (perhaps after being administered CPR, etc.
> > ... :-) ), according to our updated process:
> >
> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
> >
> > we are supposed to be finished that task in only 1 more meeting on
> > February 13, 2019 (i.e. Feb 6, this coming week, is for the first 27
> > pages). And not only that, February 13 is also the date to consider
> > that "additional data" which is to be submitted by Feb 8 (this Friday)
> > -- I've already posted on the main mailing list how unreasonable that
> > other deadline is (won't say more here).
> >
> > Anyhow, for those who haven't spoken up yet, I ask you to consider how
> > those 250+ pages will be read, analyzed, and cross-referenced against
> > the Charter questions by February 13 (starting from Feb 6, after we
> > finish this week's homework).
> >
> > One of the constructive suggestions I will make is that all future
> > homework assignments (both in sub teams, and in the main working
> > group) have an ***explicit*** stated time estimate attached to it.
> > This should then be compared with an "expected time contribution" by
> > members. I asked this before (wasn't a rhetorical question!) but would
> > love to know how much time others are expecting to contribute to this
> > subteam (or even the main RPM team) per week.
> >
> > For me, as I mentioned before, I can do 4 hours of "homework" a week,
> > plus I spend between 90 minutes and 2 hours preparing for the calls
> > (i.e. before the scheduled calls, reading others' input on the
> > homework, and getting my thoughts in order to be able to engage in a
> > discussion on reconciling all the points of view, etc.), plus the 2
> > hours for the calls themselves. That's 8 hours per week! I think
> > that's more than one can reasonably expect, for an unpaid volunteer.
> >
> > Others have suggested that 2 hours of "homework" time might be
> > reasonable (that's on top of the 1 or 2 hours for the calls, and
> > prep).
> >
> > I'll have other constructive suggestions as well (e.g. perhaps having
> > a call early in the week of March 6, where no sub team calls are
> > scheduled, as well as another  call late in the week of March 20,
> > which might give us 2 more productive weeks to be able to accomplish
> > all that's ahead of us.
> >
> > I could be doing better things on Super Bowl Sunday, but ultimately
> > we're going to have to have this discussion at some point (either
> > through the Section 3.7 appeal, or on the sub team call this
> > Wednesday, or on the mailing list now), so I thought I'd give you a
> > heads-up, as things are untenable at present.
> >
> > Enjoy the big game!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > http://www.leap.com/
> >
> > P.S. I'll be at home writing up the section 3.7 appeal this afternoon
> > (Toronto time), if anyone wants to discuss in real-time by phone (much
> > easier than writing these emails!). Or, we can talk next week.