Zoom Chat: 2021-11-03 OFB-WG Recommendation Prioritization Sub-Group Call

13:01:47 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Welcome, All
13:02:03 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Alan will join shortly. He is completing a presentation
13:02:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Excellent!
13:03:09 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
We could hear you now..
13:03:33 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
AIs: https://community.icann.org/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=155191623&draftShareId=32cd2aee-62e9-4df9-87e9-88bff4003d29&
13:05:16 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
Still mediumish :)
13:06:44 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Welcome to Marita and Jonathan!
13:07:15 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
Pretty self-explanatory which its supposed to be
13:07:31 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
sorry to be late. thought it was Tuesday today!
13:08:46 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Oh dear
13:08:51 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
Right OCL. We aren't saying highish
13:09:39 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Or just make them medium and low
13:10:12 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
I agree with JZ
13:10:58 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Welcome Judith
13:11:04 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
I would also replace barely high with quite high
13:11:29 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Intermediate, moderate, middle, normal, neutral,
13:12:32 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Welcome Alan
13:13:48 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
how about "score"?
13:13:53 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
If we are looking at prioritisation for the ALAC, why not keep the high10, high5 and high1 then LOW and not applicable. Medium becomes redundant.
13:14:07 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
High+, High; High -;
13:15:21 From Sébastien Bachollet to Everyone:
A, B, C, D, E levels?
13:15:25 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
@Daniel - your line is cutting out
13:15:29 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
Extremely High, High, Quite High, Medium, Low. We cannot get rid of "medium" since the 3 rankings of "high" came about when we felt there were several levels of HIgh
13:15:37 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
not coming though at all
13:15:44 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
so we cannot upgrade stuff that was medium to high
13:16:33 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
Very High, Moderately High, Barely High
13:16:50 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
High1 could be medium
13:17:05 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
no High 1 was initially seen as High, not Medium
13:17:15 From Daniel K Nanghaka to Everyone:
of average importance
13:17:18 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
so all Highs need to remain High
13:18:29 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
Okay, just trying to simplify
13:18:55 From Daniel K Nanghaka to Everyone:
this could lead to rhetoric numbering based on prioritization
13:19:57 From Daniel K Nanghaka to Everyone:
I hope it does not bring us to a Statistical challenge in prioritisation of the recommendations
13:20:08 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
If the rating is extremely high shouldn't the legend explain the difference between extremely and moderately, etc
13:20:44 From Daniel K Nanghaka to Everyone:
that's the Statistical challenge am talking about
13:20:57 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
Im back to leaving medium in there
13:21:57 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
Bleu, English, Medium Rare, Medium, Medium Well, Well Done... oops wrong terminology...
13:22:17 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
It’s lunch here…
13:22:19 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
the words barely and high don't sit well together IMHO
13:23:11 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
How about just levels 1-10, with 1 being unimportant and 10 being most important? We're all pretty used to such systems
13:23:28 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
@Olivier, you forgot BURNT. But my question, is RARE=HIGH, or is WellDone=HIGH? (matter of taste!)
13:24:40 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
;-)
13:24:46 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
I think that would require explanation -- each time
13:26:33 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
I just saw a page called "the 7 stages of being high" but that was not relevant to our own high.
13:28:26 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
high = essential?
13:28:31 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Sorry!
13:29:08 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
What is the practical implication of these levels. I know I've been part of the problem. USING this document has got to be our priority
13:30:14 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
High10 =absolutely essential
13:30:36 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
High 5 = very important
13:30:38 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
Why not do what Alan said and keep Extremely high as the ranking.. and a short definition for that ranking in the legend like the other rankings above
13:31:16 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
as Marita suggests
13:34:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Correct@JZ
13:34:55 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
For high10 we go on strike
13:35:11 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
LOL
13:37:30 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Yes that numeracy assumption is what @Daniel was raising as well I beleive
13:37:43 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
I like the High+ , High & High -
13:37:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
So do I
13:38:15 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
and it is possible to expand tp the other catagories
13:38:36 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
then they're really medium, no?
13:40:10 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
@jonathan, NO, not in out mind. BUt if they slip, so be it.
13:40:20 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
We need to use terms that others who are looking at our assessment also understand what we mean.. because they may not look at the definitions.. so I say we should keep the extremely & moderately
13:40:31 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
+1 Maureen
13:42:15 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Critical High Priority Urgent Ideal Nice Unimportant Not time sensitive
13:42:43 From Judith Hellerstein to Everyone:
Yes JOnathan Ilike these
13:42:58 From Judith Hellerstein to Everyone:
Ithink we need something between urgent and ideal
13:43:19 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
We'd like it but not worth fighting for
13:44:38 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
Yes, I like that inclusion of time
13:44:51 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
a very good point
13:44:53 From Maureen Hilyard to Everyone:
High+++ Critical and urgent
13:45:28 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Not all HIGH items are going to be urgent and not all urgent things are going to be High priority
13:45:41 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
I was acvtually proposing new words
13:48:20 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
That was not aimed at the Chair but at the group
13:48:30 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
I am in JZ's camp on this one -- but perhaps too late to start that again
13:50:34 From Judith Hellerstein to Everyone:
Can we have important before ideal
13:51:45 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
thanks all
13:52:18 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Thanks, All.
13:52:37 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Bye for now...
13:52:38 From Susie Johnson to Everyone:
We have seven definitions as opposed to the current six definitions