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@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@fisherbroyles.com *| *fisherbroyles.com <http://www.fsblegal.com/>
*From:* Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@berrycobb.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:33 PM *To:* dmpm@icann.kavi.com; gnso-dmpm-wg@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@berrycobb.com
@berrycobb