[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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community