FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
The initiative to define and measure indicators of the technological health of all ICANN-coordinated identifiers (Identifier Technology Health Indicators - ITHI) should not be confused with the other current “health” project that focuses on the condition of the gTLD marketplace. Nevertheless, there is a relationship between the two.
When the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) commented on the gTLD marketplace health index, it advised that developing a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) must first start with the insight into the ecosystem that the KPI is intended to convey, then develop metrics that best convey that insight, instead of just relying on data that happens to be available.
This approach informs the ITHI which asks each community to define a set of potential strategic risks that they are concerned about, and second, once those strategic risks are understood, propose to work with each operational community to define metrics that would help in tracking those strategic risks. Using an interesting but somewhat risky medical metaphor, the document defines the health of identifier system as an absence of five ”diseases”, each with their description, symptoms, causes, risk factors, complications, impact and potential treatment.
Metaphors are sometimes useful in explaining complicated things in a more understandable language. However, carrying the medical analogy too far risks just substituting one jargon with another (complete with Latin terminology) and putting off potential readers. This would be a pity, because the approach itself has much value.
The ALAC would thus recommend simplifying and “de-Latinizing” the document. We fully support the basic approach rooted in SAC077, as applied to the ITHI.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
The initiative to define and measure indicators of the technological health of all ICANN-coordinated identifiers (Identifier Technology Health Indicators - ITHI) should not be confused with the other current “health” project that focuses on the condition of the gTLD marketplace. Nevertheless, there is a relationship between the two.
When the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) commented on the gTLD marketplace health index, it advised that developing a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) must first start with the insight into the ecosystem that the KPI is intended to convey, then develop metrics that best convey that insight, instead of just relying on data that happens to be available.
This approach informs the ITHI which asks each community to define a set of potential strategic risks that they are concerned about, and second, once those strategic risks are understood, propose to work with each operational community to define metrics that would help in tracking those strategic risks. Using an interesting but somewhat risky medical metaphor, the document defines the health of identifier system as an absence of five ”diseases”, each with their description, symptoms, causes, risk factors, complications, impact and potential treatment.
Metaphors are sometimes useful in explaining complicated things in a more understandable language. However, carrying the medical analogy too far risks just substituting one jargon with another (complete with Latin terminology) and putting off potential readers. This would be a pity, because the approach itself has much value.
The ALAC would thus recommend simplifying and “de-Latinizing” the document. We fully support the basic approach rooted in SAC077, as applied to the ITHI.
4 Comments
Maureen Hilyard
Even I did not really understand the difference between the two projects and I thank you for the explanation. I totally agree that the use of "Health" indicators does create confusion and can turn people away simply because of the terminology. So I totally agree with your recommendation.
Carlton Samuels
Succinct! And for a rather complex subject, welcome.
Well done!
-Carlton
Leon Sanchez
Thanks for this draft Yrjo. I think it is an excellent work. May I just suggest a correction to the second paragraph in order to state the full name of the SSAC as Security and Stability Advisory Committee?
Holly Raiche
I agree with Maureen - the explanation is welcome because I was also confused. So it's welcome, as are the recommendations