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

[Steve Crocker]

We have two strongly competing perspectives in play.  One is that it’s late in the game and history doesn’t or shouldn’t really matter.  We’re dealing with principles and a concern for the future, not specific incidents in the past.

The other perspective is that much of this work is, in fact, being driven by reactions to past incidents and it would be helpful to have these on the table so we can understand whether we need new layers of structure or just better administration of existing layers.

Given the shortness of time, I think it’s evident we’re not going to agree to do the latter analysis, at least not as part of finalizing a proposal.  Many of us are pragmatic enough to accept this decision within limits.  Nonetheless George’s proposal and the subsequent comments about the difficulty of agreeing on the facts in each incident are compelling.  If we don’t do it now — and I accept that we’re not going to do it now — I think there will be two effects.

George’s analysis should be done later, perhaps as part of WS2 or perhaps in some other setting.  In any case, I believe until this is analysis is carried out, it is hereby inappropriate for anyone to refer to a past incident as if it were a fact.

Each person makes a decision about the proposed mechanisms will have to evaluate the forthcoming proposal based on her or his sense of whether the additional mechanisms are appropriate or excessive and to what extent the proposed mechanisms create unnecessary risk, cost or other burden.

Speaking for myself, I am predisposed toward taking a very accepting view of the elements of the proposal coming from the CCWG, and I sincerely hope I do not find myself wrestling too hard over the second point above.

Steve


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150713/8218cc41/attachment.html>