[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Renu,
> 
>  Many thanks for this great work. It definitely shows better in a
> spreadsheet.
> 
>  I have attached a commented version of the document. In general I
> believe we should try and stay on the (safer) ground of agreed upon
> definitions for our parameters, that is the reason why I suggest
> several changes. I also raise some questions about the notions you put
> up when unsure what the definition would be. This should hopefully
> lead to a bit of simplification of the matrix.

I am a bit concerned a chart like this is apt to mislead as much as to
inform. Its format carries an implication that all these factors are
of equal weight; I do not agree that they are.

For example, in my opinion, the effectiveness of an accountability
mechanism has primacy: does it actually deliver the remedy that it 
promises
to the problem it is designed to address?

Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest from 
a
legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed a 
basic
minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).

If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into 
discussing
the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent examining 
the
proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect chart, 
I'd
rather say "use this if you like, but I don't think we should frame our
discussion around it".

-- 
             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA