[Gnso-dmpm-wg] [Dmpm] Re: Metrics Request Pilot - DMPM Rec#1

[Tony Onorato]

My concern is with complicating the measure of success for the protocols we, as a WG, are trying to implement.  As I see it, the success of our recommendations for the use of data/metrics ought to be more limited to whether future groups used data per the process we are advocating, and whether that use was meaningful to that group’s process.

I agree there are related points of success that could be considered, but for our purposes, my sense is to keep it narrowly tailored so we can attain clear feedback on whether our proposals resulted in more widespread acceptance of the “data ethos” and whether that is working, in a general sense, for policy development through future groups.

Happy to discuss.

Best,

Tony

Tony Onorato, Esq./CIPP(US)
FisherBroyles, LLP
Directs: 202.459.3599/646.397.4750 | Fax: 516.706.9809 | tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com<mailto:tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com> | fisherbroyles.com<http://www.fsblegal.com/>

From: Pam Little [mailto:pam.little12 at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:34 PM
To: 'Janvier Noulaye'; Tony Onorato
Cc: 'Berry Cobb'; dmpm at icann.kavi.com; gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Dmpm] Re: Metrics Request Pilot - DMPM Rec#1

With regard to Janvier’s suggestion, maybe we can be more specific. For example:


·        Availability and clarity of eligibility criteria for funding

·        # of applications received vs # approved or rejected

·        Average time of the approval process

With regard to Tony’ suggestion, maybe we can add:


·        Who (eg registrants or registrars) or what groups have benefited from the availability of data/metrics?

From: Janvier Noulaye [mailto:jnoulaye at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:36 AM
To: Tony Onorato
Cc: Berry Cobb; dmpm at icann.kavi.com<mailto:dmpm at icann.kavi.com>; gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Dmpm] Re: Metrics Request Pilot - DMPM Rec#1

Added to the view of  Tony, I would say that, this set of “measure of success” should also show out both the WG satisfaction and the Community satisfaction.

/Janvier Ngnoulaye

2015-07-22 20:55 GMT+01:00 Tony Onorato <tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com<mailto:tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com>>:
Berry –

My sense is to measure success based on two binary questions:  (1) did the WG use data and/or metrics as part of its process (e.g., in scoping/defining the issue, prioritizing the issues under consideration, and/or guiding the WG to an informed recommendation on the issue under consideration), and (2) [was the incorporation of data and/or metrics] [or] [were the data/metrics] useful to the WG in its process?

Best,

Tony

Tony Onorato, Esq./CIPP(US)
FisherBroyles, LLP
Directs: 202.459.3599/646.397.4750 | Fax: 516.706.9809 | tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com<mailto:tony.onorato at fisherbroyles.com> | fisherbroyles.com<http://www.fsblegal.com/>

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail at berrycobb.com<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:33 PM
To: dmpm at icann.kavi.com<mailto:dmpm at icann.kavi.com>; gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Dmpm] Metrics Request Pilot - DMPM Rec#1

All,

In making updates to the next version of our draft initial report, I reminded myself that we also need to include under the recommendation details some set of “measure of success.”  I think it will benefit to provide at least a simple idea of success for the community to respond to.  Else, I suspect that if comments are not submitted to that regard, it will be asked by the GNSO Council.

Please provide input on the list, and I can add the groups ideas to the draft.  I will include a placeholder in the document.

Thank you.

B


Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail at berrycobb.com<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>
@berrycobb


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-dmpm-wg/attachments/20150723/6be04966/attachment-0003.html>