[CCWG-ACCT] W Currie and auDA comments to CCWG

[Arun Sukumar]

I found this observation from Willie Currie very interesting:

"A last point on this issue. What weight of evidence should be attached to
> an impact assessment such as Jones Day’s? We are not dealing here with an
> environmental impact assessment where there is  hard scientific data to
> include in the evidence. We are dealing with governance and accountability,
> which is in the realm of the social and the political. That means that we
> are dealing with human behaviour in a complex system with multiple
> variables, well beyond the purchase of a randomised control trial. Judging
> by the number of words such as `would’, `could’ and `likely’ in Jones Day’s
> analysis, we are primarily in the space of the speculative."



On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I found IAB's comment quite interesting. It simply says; "focus on ability
> to remove board members and every other thing will be added to you as well".
>
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.html
>
> Seem like what a designator model permits and quite less complicated,
> perhaps the CCWG may revisit the document from ARIN.
>
> That said, I hope the CCWG is paying attention to the continuous concern
> of whether there could be consensus on issues if the current model is
> implemented. This just simply means post-transition voting will be the rule
> of the day while consensus will have no place (not even rough). I doubt
> that is what multi-stakeholder mean in practice. Nevertheless, I believe
> there are folks here who knows more about MS than a "technical" me;
> hopefully they are testing the model against the multi-stakeholder
> principles
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 10 Sep 2015 01:13, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both
>> useful reading.
>>
>> auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be
>> useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly.
>>
>> Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the
>> CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the
>> discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority
>> of those who took part in the call.
>>
>> Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist
>> the CCWG with its work.
>>
>>
>> Worth reading both.
>>
>> auDA:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.html
>> Currie:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.html
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150910/cf107d57/attachment.html>