[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms

[RENU SIROTHIYA]

Dear Malcolm,

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.

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 Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:49 PM) suggested, "we could give different
criteria different weights, according to importance." I second that.]

Further, I submit that if exercise of having a scorecard to underpin the
process is not undertaken, then

   - different assessors will have different notions of relative importance
   of a parameter,
   - this way they will end up deriving different conclusions, and
   - in effect there will be further deliberations and we will actually
   loose time.


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 Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at
3:54 PM), attempt would be to adhere to agreed upon definitions and to keep
it simple.

Best,

Renu Sirothiya


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>
>> Dear Renu,
>>
>>  Many thanks for this great work. It definitely shows better in a
>> spreadsheet.
>>
>>  I have attached a commented version of the document. In general I
>> believe we should try and stay on the (safer) ground of agreed upon
>> definitions for our parameters, that is the reason why I suggest
>> several changes. I also raise some questions about the notions you put
>> up when unsure what the definition would be. This should hopefully
>> lead to a bit of simplification of the matrix.
>>
>
> I am a bit concerned a chart like this is apt to mislead as much as to
> inform. Its format carries an implication that all these factors are
> of equal weight; I do not agree that they are.
>
> For example, in my opinion, the effectiveness of an accountability
> mechanism has primacy: does it actually deliver the remedy that it promises
> to the problem it is designed to address?
>
> Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest from a
> legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed a basic
> minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).
>
> If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into
> discussing
> the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent examining the
> proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect chart, I'd
> rather say "use this if you like, but I don't think we should frame our
> discussion around it".
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150318/e8fbf1bf/attachment.html>