ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Additional Criteria "Indigenous Peoples"

  • To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Additional Criteria "Indigenous Peoples"
  • From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:23 -0400

I think the multi-stakeholder panel proposed by Olivier makes a lot of
sense. His suggestion for a comprehensive list of criteria also makes sense;
in other words we need to identify all relevant evaluation criteria. We can
recommend also that the panel be tasked to define thresholds and weights
metrics for each of those evaluation criteria, or even regroupings of
criteria. We should not re-invent evaluation procedures, they are well
documented by numerous professional and development institutions.

Cheers, Alain

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 26/04/2011 22:52, Alan Greenberg wrote :
> > Given how ICANN normally addresses such issues, a suitably qualified
> > external panel would be the only way to go (in my mind).  That will
> > separate the Board and staff from making the decisions. Sadly, it will
> > not separate the need to set the criteria on which the decisions are
> > made, nor from criticism by those who do not like the decisions, but
> > perhaps that it just life.
>
> How about a multi-stakeholder panel comprising members of several SOs/ACs?
>
> My criticism of detailing criteria during the call today stems from my
> feeling that if we try to define every type of criteria which an
> applicant would need to satisfy and we define a threshold for each of
> those criteria, we reduce the panel's subjective evaluation of an
> applicant. This would be great if we were dealing with a production
> system. But in a system which could be played voluntarily, this opens
> the door to having well defined rules which potential players will abide
> by, whilst staying out of parameter in rules which were not defined. I
> would therefore recommend that we list all of the possible criteria
> which we think are important, group them under separate headings
> according to similarity and then define them as parameters which the
> multi-stakeholder panel would need to take into account when making
> their subjective decisions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy