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 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
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<mailto: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<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb
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
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@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:36 AM To: Tony Onorato Cc: Berry Cobb; dmpm@icann.kavi.com; gnso-dmpm-wg@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@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 | <mailto:tony.onorato@fisherbroyles.com> tony.onorato@fisherbroyles.com | <http://www.fsblegal.com/> fisherbroyles.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
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@fisherbroyles.com<mailto:tony.onorato@fisherbroyles.com> | fisherbroyles.com<http://www.fsblegal.com/> From: Pam Little [mailto:pam.little12@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:34 PM To: 'Janvier Noulaye'; Tony Onorato Cc: 'Berry Cobb'; dmpm@icann.kavi.com; gnso-dmpm-wg@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@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:36 AM To: Tony Onorato Cc: Berry Cobb; dmpm@icann.kavi.com<mailto:dmpm@icann.kavi.com>; gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg@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@fisherbroyles.com<mailto: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<mailto:tony.onorato@fisherbroyles.com> | fisherbroyles.com<http://www.fsblegal.com/> From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:33 PM To: dmpm@icann.kavi.com<mailto:dmpm@icann.kavi.com>; gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb
participants (4)
-
Berry Cobb -
Janvier Noulaye -
Pam Little -
Tony Onorato