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@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