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

[Roelof Meijer]

Dear Mathieu, all,

I think the questions are quite a good start. „Greater”, „better” and
„improved” are of course very subjective, but I do not have a „better”
approach.

I suggest we add a question that refers to the „powers” we identified
(vetoing board decision to change bylaws, vetoing strategic plan,
recalling board etc), something like: „does the mechanism enables the
execution of the powers identified”. We might also want to add a category
„support from CCWG members”, as this would be in indicator for community
support (hopefully..)

For the process, I suggest we design some sort of a scorecard, in which
for every criterium a mechanism’s suitability (or effectiveness) is scored
e.g. on a scale from 1 (very poor) to five (excellent). The total score of
a mechanism would at least give some indication about its overall
suitability. If necessary, we could give different criteria different
weights, according to importance.


Best,

Roelof




On 16-03-15 18:03, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Apologies for first cut off email.
>
>A discussion was raised with WP1 about how we would reach decisions when
>comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are
>working on.
>
>In anticipation of our CCWG call please find below a first draft list of
>questions which should enable us to, at least, clarify the merits of the
>various options before we reach conclusions. This is of particular
>importance before our meeting in Istanbul.
>
>You will be provided an opportunity to comment during the call tomorrow,
>but this can also be achieved via mailing list.
>
>Best,
>Mathieu
>---------------------------------------
>Key criteria to compare options :
>
>1) Comparing enhancements to accountability
>
>      a) Aspects of accountability
>           - does one option provide greater transparency ?
>           - does one option provide better consultation ?
>           - does one option provide improved review ? e
>           - does one option provide improved redress ?
>
>      b) Qualities of accountability mechanisms
>           - does one option provide better checks and balances ?
>           - does one option provide better independence ?
>
>      c) Stakeholders : does one option extend accountability to more
>relevant stakeholders ?
>
>      d) Purpose : does one option enable accountability to more of the
>relevant accountability purposes ?
>
>2) Effectiveness : Would one of the options be more effective ?
>
>3) Simplicity : is one option simpler / easier / faster to set up ?
>      a)   Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to
>implement and to explain, internally and externally?
>      b) Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and
>resource required from the community to make the mechanism work?
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community