Question 3: Would it help you in making a determination to participate if there were some form of prioritization (e.g., High/Medium/Low) indicating the relative importance or urgency of the matter from the perspective of the Originating Organization that is responsible for the solicitation?
I agree with Don (and the staff) that this will be difficult to pull off. The problem with the fields as they exist today, while expressive, not not data driven and do not help to filter comments. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a field such as "phase" which could be used by some as a kind of proxy for priority. Knowing whether a particular comment period is coming at the beginning or near the end of the policy development or implementation process might be an incentive for different constituencies to participate. Some might have a preference for more "principle" oriented comments that should happen sooner and others, like the two Steves <g>, are going to drill into the details when the discussion is further along. Does this make sense?
Obtain input on the IRTP Part B Recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council prior to ICANN Board consideration.
Current Status:
The IRTP Part B WG delivered its Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011. The GNSO Council adopted a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22 June 2011. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policies that are considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.
Next Steps:
ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the Board in conjunction with the IRTP Part B PDP recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council.
Thanks Ken, I've seen that part. I think those descriptions are very useful once you're looking at a particular request for comment. Part of the challenge, however, is reducing the number of descriptions that people need to read and that requires some sort of filtering and/or sorting which is where the notion of "priority" really comes into play. Ideally, folks would be able to only read the ones that are "high" priority. While I agree it's a lot to ask of staff to come up with low/med/high designations, finding other "objective" variable on which the list can be sorted for filtered will help limit how much reading folks need to do.
So the notion of "phase" is a fixed list of alternatives that have to do with where the topic of interest is in the policy development/implementation process so that folks could choose WHEN in the process to comment.
Thanks for the clarification. The goal for this element of the ATRT Recommendations was to find some kind of "hook" that might easily and accurately indicate a topic's relative priority; however, it is becoming apparent is that importance varies considerably from community to community as well as person to person. Staff has gone on record with the Board indicating that it would be inappropriate for Staff to choose priority if such action required judgment.
I recognize that your concept of "Phase" would be an objective determinant; however, it would only apply to topics that are structured within the formal Policy Development Process (PDP) where specific phases have been defined. Would the "Phases" have to be identical across SOs? I understand that GNSO is working on a new PDP (five phases?), but it might end up having a differing number (or descriptions) than ccNSO.
Also, how might we utilize "Phase" for those solicitations outside of PDPs?
Well, in a way, it becomes a separate sort of "category" field, that's all. You could come up with a phase path for PDPs and a more generic one for others issues, including those that are standalone and not related to a larger effort. All of that is useful and filterable information, no?
I like the idea of having a field phase. I think it will be very helpful. But also, a field phase could be combined with Prioritization with low, midium, high. I don't see any problem with such prioritization.
Yes, in an ideal world. But once you start doing that, you end up in staff making choices. So the answer is no.(as our world is not ideal yet) .
However, having a calender or a project calendar indicating which public comment is on, and which one has to be finished to start a new project, would be useful.
This idea is intriguing... How do you envision that a project calendar might be structured and how it might help the Public Comments process? A few follow-up questions:
Who would use the calendar?
What info would it contain?
Where might it be located?
In what ways would seeing a solicitation on a calendar help the ICANN community?
Would prospective Upcoming topics be included or only those that are currently open? (Note: Upcoming topics normally do not have specific dates, but only ranges, e.g., 3Q2011 or 1H2012).
Do you have any examples that might illustrate what you have in mind?
Frederic, you're asking a lot of an organization who's compliance database is an email folder! ;) Seriously, path dependencies are a very powerful tool for understanding "priority," and this is a more sophisticated version of what I was suggesting. If you WERE able to maintain a kind of GANTT chart of the various policy development processes that are in place (you're already doing a lot of the underlying work for the data) and could reflect which public comment requests were "critical path" for a larger process (as opposed to something smaller happening in paralell) that could be a powerful tool. I'm sure everyone (well not everyone!) would be interested in being able to check in on the GANTT chart as well to have an idea where things stand, what's outstanding, what's behind, how that's affecting the schedule. I don't know if you're using formal project management software now but I suspect most of the major packages now have some sort of "web sync" function that would make it easy to periodically update the publically visible GANTT chart.
GANTT chart? I'm going to have nightmares tonight about my long ago project management classes. :)
I can see the value of a phase field but have reservations about any notes about proposed steps because they may not be known. I agree with Jonathan that charting progress could be a major undertaking. It would be useful for informing the public, as opposed to identifying comment requests, if were feasible.
Oh come one! I'm going to assume your nightmares won't be as bad as when I, as a former relational database design instructor, discovered the compliance database was a folder in Outlook!
13 Comments
Don Blumenthal
No. That kind of ranking is too subjective. Priorities should be up to potential responders and their determination of interests and resources.
Jonathan Zuck
I agree with Don (and the staff) that this will be difficult to pull off. The problem with the fields as they exist today, while expressive, not not data driven and do not help to filter comments. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a field such as "phase" which could be used by some as a kind of proxy for priority. Knowing whether a particular comment period is coming at the beginning or near the end of the policy development or implementation process might be an incentive for different constituencies to participate. Some might have a preference for more "principle" oriented comments that should happen sooner and others, like the two Steves <g>, are going to drill into the details when the discussion is further along. Does this make sense?
Jonathan
Ken Bour
Jonathan:
While we don't have a "Phase" field identified (not all Public Comments would have one), as of 30 June, we are now attempting to provide the circumstances surrounding each solicitation. For example, for the currently Open title: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration, we show the Purpose, Current Status, and Next Steps. Does that help provide sufficient context in lieu of a "Phase" field?
Ken
Purpose:
Obtain input on the IRTP Part B Recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council prior to ICANN Board consideration.
Current Status:
The IRTP Part B WG delivered its Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011. The GNSO Council adopted a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22 June 2011. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policies that are considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.
Next Steps:
ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that will be submitted to the Board in conjunction with the IRTP Part B PDP recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council.
Jonathan Zuck
Thanks Ken, I've seen that part. I think those descriptions are very useful once you're looking at a particular request for comment. Part of the challenge, however, is reducing the number of descriptions that people need to read and that requires some sort of filtering and/or sorting which is where the notion of "priority" really comes into play. Ideally, folks would be able to only read the ones that are "high" priority. While I agree it's a lot to ask of staff to come up with low/med/high designations, finding other "objective" variable on which the list can be sorted for filtered will help limit how much reading folks need to do.
So the notion of "phase" is a fixed list of alternatives that have to do with where the topic of interest is in the policy development/implementation process so that folks could choose WHEN in the process to comment.
Does that make more sense?
Jonathan
Ken Bour
Jonathan:
Thanks for the clarification. The goal for this element of the ATRT Recommendations was to find some kind of "hook" that might easily and accurately indicate a topic's relative priority; however, it is becoming apparent is that importance varies considerably from community to community as well as person to person. Staff has gone on record with the Board indicating that it would be inappropriate for Staff to choose priority if such action required judgment.
I recognize that your concept of "Phase" would be an objective determinant; however, it would only apply to topics that are structured within the formal Policy Development Process (PDP) where specific phases have been defined. Would the "Phases" have to be identical across SOs? I understand that GNSO is working on a new PDP (five phases?), but it might end up having a differing number (or descriptions) than ccNSO.
Also, how might we utilize "Phase" for those solicitations outside of PDPs?
Ken
Jonathan Zuck
Well, in a way, it becomes a separate sort of "category" field, that's all. You could come up with a phase path for PDPs and a more generic one for others issues, including those that are standalone and not related to a larger effort. All of that is useful and filterable information, no?
J
Sokol Haxhiu
I like the idea of having a field phase. I think it will be very helpful. But also, a field phase could be combined with Prioritization with low, midium, high. I don't see any problem with such prioritization.
Frederic Guillemaut
Yes, in an ideal world. But once you start doing that, you end up in staff making choices. So the answer is no.(as our world is not ideal yet) .
However, having a calender or a project calendar indicating which public comment is on, and which one has to be finished to start a new project, would be useful.
Just like a project management calendar..
Ken Bour
Frederic:
This idea is intriguing... How do you envision that a project calendar might be structured and how it might help the Public Comments process? A few follow-up questions:
Do you have any examples that might illustrate what you have in mind?
Thanks,
Ken
Jonathan Zuck
Frederic, you're asking a lot of an organization who's compliance database is an email folder! ;) Seriously, path dependencies are a very powerful tool for understanding "priority," and this is a more sophisticated version of what I was suggesting. If you WERE able to maintain a kind of GANTT chart of the various policy development processes that are in place (you're already doing a lot of the underlying work for the data) and could reflect which public comment requests were "critical path" for a larger process (as opposed to something smaller happening in paralell) that could be a powerful tool. I'm sure everyone (well not everyone!) would be interested in being able to check in on the GANTT chart as well to have an idea where things stand, what's outstanding, what's behind, how that's affecting the schedule. I don't know if you're using formal project management software now but I suspect most of the major packages now have some sort of "web sync" function that would make it easy to periodically update the publically visible GANTT chart.
Don Blumenthal
GANTT chart? I'm going to have nightmares tonight about my long ago project management classes. :)
I can see the value of a phase field but have reservations about any notes about proposed steps because they may not be known. I agree with Jonathan that charting progress could be a major undertaking. It would be useful for informing the public, as opposed to identifying comment requests, if were feasible.
Jonathan Zuck
Oh come one! I'm going to assume your nightmares won't be as bad as when I, as a former relational database design instructor, discovered the compliance database was a folder in Outlook!
Frederic Guillemaut
Sorry for the nightmares ... I did not use the terme Gantt Diagram on purpose, as I know it is hard to maintain.
But some programms can create diagrammes easily from a few notes, and give a graphic feeling of what is important and steps to follow.
Please see an example here (used a long time ago) from a free software :
Colours, numbers, Categories: you have all the information needed to facilitate public comments.