[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Sat Jul 11 17:09:06 UTC 2015


as being familiar with the Hippocratic Oath from a professional perspective, I need to point out that the "First, do no harm" maxim does not appear there. A popular misconception, as seven Wikipedia will tell you.

However, I do not agree that we  should put in only minimum fixes, because we can only fix what comes to our attention as being broken, after the fact. 

Now the old software maxim "Don't fix what ain't broken" has its place in avoiding introducing new bugs, but it does nothing to improve the user experience or function.

Since you brought it up, in (Curative) Medicine and especially Surgery, we of course only do what the patients gives informed consent to, but only doing the minimum to fix a problem is considered unprofessional and would attract serious liability. Never mind that Preventative Medicine including Screening have shown to be of immense value.

ICANN is broken in so many ways, some of which we know, some we suspect, some that are hidden by obfuscation and even secrecy, and I am sure in many other ways that will come to light eventually. 

It is in need of comprehensive, structural reform, if not a complete redesign. Not just our tinkering around the edges.

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 19:16, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Hippocratic oath, "do no harm," is as relevant to communities and organizations as it is to medicine.  If something is largely working but has flaws, it's reasonable to ask the question of what is the minimum change necessary to eliminate the flaw.
> In the case of accountability,  it is clear that accountability is a necessary component of an adequate governance structure. The question in my mind is how much and in what form. I believe that the advisor to the CCWG, Jan Scholte, remarked in an earlier intervention, the issue is accountability for what, to whom, and with what enforcement mechanisms. It's possible that the this easy WG has already provided a concise statement answering these questions. If so, could someone please point me to it; if not wouldn't it be useful to have one?
> In that spirit, I'd like to ask members of this group the following question: What specific events and/or activities can you identify In the past on any part of ICANN or its constituent bodies that current accountability mechanisms do not protect from?  how do the variety of current proposals address those shortcomings, and how in the past with these mechanisms have been used to address those specific events and/or activities?  If there already exists such a list, please point me to it; if there isn't wouldn't it be useful for some reality testing?
> I am not suggesting that it would be sufficient to engineer new accountability mechanisms that dealt only with previous behavior that was considered inappropriate. Clearly it's very possible that new behavior  by any part of the community considered inappropriate by any other part of the community will fit into new patterns and will not  replicate earlier activities. However, there's a lot of merit in fact-based evidence, and I would like very much to have the opinion of people on this list of those  instances where new accountability measures would have been useful and effective where existing accountability measures failed. 
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list