Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent. Corrected figures do not change a lot.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dany and all,

  I think that Thomas is just spining here...  Nothing more..

Dany Vandromme wrote:

> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > First of all, I'd like to congratulate the NCDNHC team for the
> > great amount of work spent on its report for the .org bid
> > evaluation.
> >
> > However, the numerical material provided in the report is
> > inconsistent.
> >
> > The most obvious problem occurs in the table on page 49, where
> -
> There are less than 49 pages to this report
> -
> > responsiveness scores are simply sorted in decreasing order.  Here's
> > a corrected version of that table:
> >
> > +-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+
> > | name        | responsiveness | support | differentiation | total   |
> > +-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+
> > | unity       |          27.25 |       9 |            20.5 | 24.5575 |
> > | isoc        |          21.75 |       9 |            14.5 | 20.6725 |
> > | ims/isc     |             14 |       7 |              15 |   16.78 |
> > | gnr         |          26.75 |       3 |              14 | 15.8225 |
> > | uia         |          16.75 |       5 |             7.5 | 12.5225 |
> > | neustar     |          12.75 |       3 |              15 | 12.4425 |
> > | dotorg      |           20.5 |       1 |               9 |  10.135 |
> > | registerorg |          11.75 |       0 |              16 |  9.5725 |
> > | .org        |              5 |       5 |               5 |    8.35 |
> > | switch      |              8 |       0 |              10 |    6.16 |
> > | organic     |              0 |       0 |            11.5 |     4.6 |
> > +-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+
> >
> > (total = 0.27 * responsiveness + support + 0.4 * differentiation)
> > (Note that I didn't bother to reduce the numbers in the total column
> > to the appropriate number of significant digits.)
> >
> > The data sources I used for this table are on pages 4, 14, and 43 of
> > the NCDNHC report.
> >
> > Note that my results match the ones on page 27 of the report - the
> > remaining differences may be due to rounding errors in the weighting
> > factors.
> -
> Agree
> At the end, Milton and I did conclude with a slightly different approach
> to make the figures synthesis of the 3 criteria. That's why we offered
> the two in the report.
> -
> >
> > When I asked Alexander Svensson to independently verify my concerns,
> > he came up with another problem: The table on page 14
> > (responsiveness and governance rankings) is inconsistent in itself.
> > GNR's score should be 27.75 (instead of 26.75, thereby placing GNR
> > on rank 1, ahead of unity with 27.25), while ISOC's score should be
> > 23.25 (instead of 21.75; no ranking changes caused).
> >
> > This error also sheds a spotlight on a methdological problem in the
> > final evaluation of the NCDNHC's results: By merely averaging
> > ranks, small differences in the originating scores (possibly caused
> > by minor errors - the mistake in GNR's score corresponds to an error
> > of about 3.5%!) are exaggerated in the end result.
> -
> Agree
> -
> > In this
> > particular case, for instance, the corrected "responsiveness" rating
> > would place GNR on the same rank as Neustar in the average ranking
> > evaluation on page 26 of the report.
> -
> The second method for synthesis is not really impacted by the two
> changes pointed out above:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  | Corrected grades    |  Grades as in rthe Report
>    |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unity            | 24.47               |                24.47
>    |
> ISOC             | 21.00               |                20.47
>    |
> IMS/ISC          | 16.73               |                16.73
>    |
> GNR              | 16.00               |                15.73
>    |
> UIA              | 12.47               |                12.47
>    |
> Neustar          | 12.40               |                12.40
>    |
> DotOrg Foundation| 10.07               |                10.07
>    |
> Register Org     |  9.53               |                 9.53
>    |
> .Org Foundation  |  8.33               |                 8.33
>    |
> Switch           |  6.13               |                 6.13
>    |
> Organic Names    |  4.60               |                 4.60
>    |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regards
> DV
> -
> >
> > I'll leave it to the NCDNHC team, ICANN staff, and the applicants
> > themselves to check and verify the rest of the material provided.
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER
>
>                 Reseau National de Telecommunications
>          pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
>
>                                   |  ENSAM
> Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
> Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
> E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208