[CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being discussed

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Jul 13 18:52:26 UTC 2015


I ask again, it this really the time to go down these rat holes?

Are we trying to set up an argument by counterexample were we object to
the major thesis about what is needed for ICANN accountability by
quibbling about past events we could never come to agreement on?  This
sort of exercise often falls into the fallacy of compostion by assuming
that a complex whole can be negated by denying one of its parts.


On 13-Jul-15 14:32, Steve Crocker wrote:
> [George’s note and this note were not coordinated in advance nor have
> he and I had this discussion.]
> George.
> I very much like your proposed approach.  I suspect the first step is
> actually quite hard and contentious.  For each of the incidents of
> concern, I suspect different people have strongly different views on
> what happened.  It may require getting some neutral people to listen
> carefully to the competing views, gather the facts and present them in
> a balanced form.  I am not happy having to say this, but I think
> that’s the environment we’re working in.  Many of the people have
> strong ideas as to whether the right thing or the wrong thing was
> done, and their presentations frequently support their conclusions.
> Steve
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:49 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Malcolm,
>> [These are my personal opinions, and in no way are they meant to
>> represent the opinions of anyone else or of any organization.]
>> Thank you for this note.  I believe that it provides a balanced
>> perspective from which to discuss issues of accountability.
>> I'd like to suggest a next step in the direction of due diligence.
>>  For each of the alleged misbehaviors, in Jonathan Zuck's or any
>> others' lists, I suggest that the ideal way to proceed would be to:
>> 1. Reach a common understanding of what the facts are and what really
>> happened.
>> 2. Characterize why the alleged misbehavior violated community norms
>> or bylaws, or was inappropriate in any other way.
>> 3. Discuss and decide what would/could have happened if any one of
>> the several accountability models currently being discussed had been
>> in force.
>> 4. Discuss whether the proposed changes would be overkill, with
>> respect to this specific incident only, i.e. judging whether the
>> response is proportional to the alleged misbehavior.
>> I know that this is not possible in the large, but I think that it
>> would be instructive, certainly for me, to choose some examples and
>> work them through.
>> This suggestion is not meant to sidetrack the issue of developing an
>> appropriate accountability structure for its own sake. As Malcolm
>> notes, "accountability is
>> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because
>> they are
>> desirable in their own right."  That's an important part of the
>> equation also.
>> I seek serious conversations on this subject in Paris.   Anyone else? 
>> George   
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
>> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>>> On 2015-07-13 04:48, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>>> But I would like to push back on your belief that past practice, while
>>>> interesting, is not relevant to our discussion.  I believe that it is
>>>> relevant, if only to agree with George Santayana's statement that
>>>> people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.
>>> [..]
>>>> But it should also help the CCWG, in that where there is factually
>>>> verified and agreed upon evidence of out of bounds behavior by the
>>>> Board (or for that matter any other organization in the ICANN orbit),
>>>> one of your "stress  tests"should be to discuss what kind of reaction
>>>> that behavior would produce if one or more of your accountability
>>>> models had been in place at the time.  I would think that this is a
>>>> necessary test of any new accountability proposal.  Wouldn't not doing
>>>> this be a failure of due diligence?
>>> Generally I agree with Jonathan when he says that accountability is
>>> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because
>>> they are
>>> desirable in their own right, and should not have to be justified by
>>> reference to some past misdemeanour they are intended to correct.
>>> On the other hand, the advice I quote above from George is also
>>> compelling:
>>> if we fail to address identifiable problems that have arisen before,
>>> then
>>> that would be delinquency on our part.
>>> So it seems to me that the question of past issues is not symmetrical:
>>> evidence of past problems is relevant input to justify a proposed
>>> accountability
>>> improvement, but a lack of evidence of past misbehaviour is not relevant
>>> input as to why a proposed accountability improvement is not necessary.
>>> Malcolm
>>> -- 
>>>           Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> George Sadowsky                     Residence tel: +1.802.457.3370
>> 119 Birch Way                          GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
>> Woodstock, VT  05091-7986  USA         SMS: 2024151933 at txt.att.net
>> <mailto:2024151933 at txt.att.net>    
>> george.sadowsky at gmail.com
>> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>           http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
>> Skype: sadowsky                           twitter: @georgesadowsky
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list