<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent. Corrected figures do not change a lot.
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
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|