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