[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence
george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Sat Jul 11 18:52:15 UTC 2015
I took a tour of the history of the Hippocratic Oath, via Google, and you are of course correct. Actually, it is a very, very long oath in any of its forms.
Avri believes that there is no point in going over the past, but I really would like to understand what past events are most prominent in driving the accountability discussion. There are, to be sure, normative considerations regarding governance models and structures, but there also seem to be a lot of specific evens that would yield fact based evidence for change. Are there that many? Hw about starting a list, with a short description of how each affects the accountability process underway?
As for reforming ICANN, I have a number of ideas on how ICANN could be improved, some affecting the Board. For example, I feel strongly that Board meetings should generally be public, and that the serious issues for debate should be scheduled for public sessions. That is not the case now, and I continue to push the idea. Now, when you say, "ICANN is broken in so many ways, some of which we know, some we suspect, some that are hidden by obfuscation and even secrecy," say more, give concrete examples of brokenness and the directions the fix could take. It's impossible to deal only with the general statement.
I'm not aversee to changes in ICAN, but I want them to be based on observable defects and improvement strategies that are likely to be effective in fulfilling our mandate. That's all.
>> 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?
On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> 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.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community