[CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being discussed
avri at acm.org
Mon Jul 13 20:42:23 UTC 2015
I do think you are twisting words and concepts.
I might be wrong.
About all sorts of things.
In any case you speak again of facts. I think there are several types
of things that can be called facts beyond the simple noticing of events
in the word, i.e the light changed to green, the leaves fell, the baby
was born. Or facts like a process was established, a process was
discontinued or an appeal was decided.
- Engineering Facts: someone takes a theory, builds a highway bridge to
withstand a hurricane and the bridge withstands. It is a fact that the
bridge stood. So far, anyway.
- Juridical Facts: someone takes a case to and appeals panel or to
court, every one argues and after legal magic a final ruling is made.
That ruling is a fact and remains a fact unitl some other ruling
- Scientific facts: someone takes a theory and comes up with an
experiment to falsify the theory and fails to do so. Until it is
falsified the theory is assumed to be a fact.
Reviewing cases like TMCH+50 or unilateral changes to a base contract
would need to adjudicated by someone external those argueing the side of
the case to determine whether the apparent transgression is just an
accusation or a juridical fact. So had we been able to take charges on
inappropriate handling of an issue to the IRP we might have been able to
determine whether it was a fact or a baseless accusation. The IRP seems
to be able to make such determinations with a fair degree of wisdom.
But we did not have the power to do so - no access to an appeals
mechanism. At this point, we really have no way to adjudicate such an
issue. that is why I call it a rat hole. Can "I say, you say, we all
say" establish a fact without proper jurisdiction?
So we can not declare that the TMCH+50 or unilateral change of base
contracts were contrary to the bylaws as a matter of fact.
The only fact we can state is that we had no way to resolve these
accountability issues in the current environment.
The more we talk about facts and the need to prove a case juridically,
the more I begin to understand why there are those who insist on a
membership model that allows for court processes to deal with
adjudicating such issues.
As I said at the top,
I might be wrong.
On 13-Jul-15 15:44, 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.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community