[PC-NCSG] [Important] Reminder about public comments on data metrics

[Sam Lanfranco]

PC,

I support Rafik's suggestion of going on record as endorsing Amr's
comments even though the submission date has passed. Amr is not alone
facing work crunches at the moment (written from California while my
crops are ripening on my farm in Canada...argh!)and catch up is
better than neglect.

Amr?s comments on the data and metrics for policy-making submission
highlight three points that should be central to how evidence is
handled in any decision making process. As I read them, they call for
more clarification with regard to process.

First, for any data metrics input into the policy development process
there should be a process for assessing the potential contribution of
quantitative data to the issue at hand. Data metrics input should not
simply be a (costly/time consuming) mandatory component of all PDPs.

Second (and dear to my position that evidence only has relevance in
context) it should neither play a defining role in the PDP nor should
it diminish the role of qualitative evidence, evidence that is
frequently essential in validating contextual relevance for
quantitative evidence.

Lastly, Amr stresses that any quantitative analysis of data should be
subject to processes that insure transparent methods of assessment
prior to putting it to use for the purpose of evidence-based policy
development. For me this points back to the validation process. As we
have seen, ICANN is not immune from calling in "expertise" and trying
to run with the un-assessed evidence (e.g. Westlake).

Sam L,
NPOC Policy Committee