<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Renu, Malcolm, Roelof & colleagues, <br>
<br>
Based on our discussion during the call yesterday, I think we have
touched upon some of the concerns raised as well as useful things to
consider going forward. <br>
<br>
First, we clarified this tool would not be used for systematic
rating of proposals but rather as a tool to better understand the
impact of various options and frame the discussions in a manner that
remains focused on the objective requirements. <br>
<br>
We have also received interesting inputs about the criteria
themselves. Legality (following legal advice on feasability for
instance) as well as synergy (ability for a mechanism to be used for
several powers, or rely on existing mechanisms) are added to the
list. However we need to try and keep this as simple as possible. <br>
<br>
I have attached an updated version incorporating these inputs. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 17/03/2015 20:38, RENU SIROTHIYA a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAES2jcfocK4xgsaSfk57L8_ttHvM9=hP_V779k99homrYG3rJw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 class="" style="font-size:13px" cellpadding="0">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>