<div dir="ltr">Dear Malcolm,<div><br></div><div>I completely identify and appreciate that time is of essence and prioritization is the key. In fact this is what motivated me to suggest a matrix because such framework may give direction to assessment. But if there is none, I wonder what would be the approach for relative assessment of options? I'm afraid then evaluation would be subjective and not objective/accountable. </div><div><br></div><div>On your contention that 'weights of different parameters are likely to be not equal', I again agree, and clarify that this why in my previous mail, I didn't state scale and scores, but rather categorically mention that weights may be assigned (please read after agreement). [On this @Roelof (in mail of <span style="font-size:13px">Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:49 PM) </span>suggested, "<span style="font-size:13px">we could give different criteria different </span><span style="font-size:13px">weights, according to importance.</span>" I second that.]</div><div><br></div><div>Further, I submit that if exercise of having a scorecard to underpin the process is not undertaken, then </div><div><ul><li>different assessors will have different notions of relative importance of a parameter, </li><li>this way they will end up deriving different conclusions, and </li><li>in effect there will be further deliberations and we will actually loose time.<br></li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>In my considerate view, this is essential. Seems @Roelof agrees. From my end if other colleagues agree, I stand to contribute on this further, and while doing so as suggested by @Mathieu (in mail of <span style="font-size:13px">Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM</span>), attempt would be to adhere to agreed upon definitions and to keep it simple. </div><table cellpadding="0" class="" style="font-size:13px"><tbody><tr class=""><td class="" style="width:585px"><br></td></tr></tbody></table><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Renu Sirothiya</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear Renu,<br>
<br>
Many thanks for this great work. It definitely shows better in a<br>
spreadsheet.<br>
<br>
I have attached a commented version of the document. In general I<br>
believe we should try and stay on the (safer) ground of agreed upon<br>
definitions for our parameters, that is the reason why I suggest<br>
several changes. I also raise some questions about the notions you put<br>
up when unsure what the definition would be. This should hopefully<br>
lead to a bit of simplification of the matrix.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I am a bit concerned a chart like this is apt to mislead as much as to<br>
inform. Its format carries an implication that all these factors are<br>
of equal weight; I do not agree that they are.<br>
<br>
For example, in my opinion, the effectiveness of an accountability<br>
mechanism has primacy: does it actually deliver the remedy that it promises<br>
to the problem it is designed to address?<br>
<br>
Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest from a<br>
legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed a basic<br>
minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).<br>
<br>
If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into discussing<br>
the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent examining the<br>
proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect chart, I'd<br>
rather say "use this if you like, but I don't think we should frame our<br>
discussion around it".<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>