Second GNSO Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 192:

# whether and what type of additional information would be needed to implement; and

# priority of the recommendation.<ref name="feastable">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56138570 GNSO2 Workspace - Final Recommendations - Feasibility & Prioritization], last updated August 12, 2016</ref>

The raw scores were combined, and further discussion among the working group allowed the group to sort the recommendations into four categories:

The raw scores were combined, and further discussion among the working group allowed the group to sort the recommendations into four categories: WP suggests adoption; WP agrees and work is underway; WP agrees with the intent and suggests modification of recommendation language; and do not implement. The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />

* WP suggests adoption;

* WP agrees and work is underway;

* WP agrees with the intent and suggests modification of recommendation language; and

* do not implement.

The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />

==References==

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 # whether and what type of additional information would be needed to implement; and
 # priority of the recommendation.<ref name="feastable">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56138570 GNSO2 Workspace - Final Recommendations - Feasibility & Prioritization], last updated August 12, 2016</ref>
+The raw scores were combined, and further discussion among the working group allowed the group to sort the recommendations into four categories:
-The raw scores were combined, and further discussion among the working group allowed the group to sort the recommendations into four categories: WP suggests adoption; WP agrees and work is underway; WP agrees with the intent and suggests modification of recommendation language; and do not implement. The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />
+* WP suggests adoption;
+* WP agrees and work is underway;
+* WP agrees with the intent and suggests modification of recommendation language; and
+* do not implement.
+The scores of the recommendations in each category were factored in to create a priority order for each set of recommendations. The more factors weighed in the recommendation's favor (easy to implement, low cost, strategically aligned, dependency free, no additional information required, and high priority in the opinion of the WP members), the higher the score.<ref name="feastable" />
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}