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

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.NA
Mon Jul 13 19:51:59 UTC 2015

Maybe we should just have someone go through all the interventions
the 8 (or 9) Board members participating in the CCWG have made, in
their personal capacity, and collate them.

Wouldn't that be interesting?


On 2015-07-13 20:44 , Steve Crocker wrote:
> 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.
>  1.  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.
>  2.  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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150713/60909a34/smime.p7s>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list