hi,

Another one I sent in.

Again not one i expect the NCSG to endorse.

a.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 22 July 2010 00:00:11 EDT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Community Priority Evaluation
> 
> 
> This comment concerns the basis on which the calculations for Community priority ratings are done.
> 
> The Integer scale that the staff has picked does not allow for sufficient differentiation for those doing the calculations.  It is, I believe, a reflection of the one size fits all problem that ICANN often experiences in its implementations.  
> 
> In almost all of the criteria, the decision is on a 3 point scale, though in some cases it is only a binary scale.  The criteria, are not, however that Black, Grey and White (or Black and White in the case of the binary selections) so the discrete scale will end up evaluating various choices with the same metric even when they may be qualitatively different.  Since only 2 points can be lost in the evaluation, such a rough scale will exclude possible communities who have near misses on the criteria, but who must be marked down a whole point, instead of a more appropriate .5 or even .2 points.
> 
> I recommend that the evaluation procedure not use a gross integer measure that will miss the nuances in these difficult and crucial criteria.  I recommend that the scale be changed to a real scale that allows for discrimination in terms of tenths of a point instead of in terms of whole points.
> 
> I believe that making this change will make the decision procedure more sensitive, while still providing a bright line between those applications that merit community priority and those that don't.
> 
> Avri Doria
> Individual Opinion