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

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all

I largely agree with Steve delB and Avri in this thread, but just one
thought further:

On 14 July 2015 at 07:44, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> 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.
>
>
I thought the explicit rationale for the CCWG's work was to deal with
developing an accountability settlement for ICANN in the environment that
will exist after the expiry of the IANA functions contract.

So I am not sure which of those two perspectives it fits into - it feels
like the second half of your first perspective, Steve.

As one of the people on this list with the 'shortest' memory of ICANN, but
a much longer memory and experience of ccTLD governance in a case that
replicates many features of the ICANN environment, I'm def interested in
the future.

J

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150714/7d2a1259/attachment.html>