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

[Matthew Shears]

+ 1 Avri and Paul

On 7/13/2015 3:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
> +1   With the limited time we have available, we are going to need to 
> focus on outcomes we need to deliver to the CWG - and then other 
> tasking for follow-up work, either by the ccwg or other working 
> groups/processes.
>
> On 7/14/15 5:19 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>> Exactly Avri!
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>> Sent: ‎7/‎13/‎2015 2:52 PM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models 
>> being discussed
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> 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.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>
> -- 
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Managing Director
> Argo P at cific
>
> US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>
> www.argopacific.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150713/b855c7ee/attachment.html>