<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Kieren,<br>
<br>
It is a good point that a culture of accountability and transparency
would in itself provide a great enhancement to accountability.
"Culture eats accountability for breakfast", to paraphrase a famous
management saying ;-)<br>
<br>
As far as our group is concerned, we should definitely ensure we
take this into account. I see two ways of doing so :<br>
- ensuring our stress tests include the risk of paralyzing the
organisation with processes and legal actions (I think it has been
captured)<br>
- assess what kinds of incentives our proposed mechanisms would
create. That's where the diversity of our group's experience will be
extremely valuable. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/01/2015 02:00, Alan Greenberg a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:e78a964f-2efd-4816-afdc-b948779dd9d9@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite">
As I read Kieren's message, he was advocating that the original
decisions
be made using more human judgement, not only reconsiderations.<br>
<br>
Perhaps harder to accomplish...<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 28/01/2015 07:55 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Yep, the new
accountability
regime must go beyond just whether ICANN management followed the
prescribed process, which is all that a Reconsideration Request
is
supposed to consider. <br>
<br>
So let's expand the criteria that independent review panels can
use, so
that humans will review a board/management decision on
substantive
questions of judgement.<br>
<br>
—<br>
Steve DelBianco<br>
Execuutive Director<br>
NetChoice<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.netchoice.org/">http://www.NetChoice.org</a>
and
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blog.netchoice.org/">http://blog.netchoice.org</a><br>
+1.202.420.7482<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Kieren McCarthy
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com">
kieren@kierenmccarthy.com</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM<br>
To: Accountability Cross Community
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability<br>
<br>
Hello all, <br>
<br>
I've been giving a lot thought to effective accountability of
ICANN and
came across an idea that I don't think has been properly
considered and
which may make the difference between getting it right this time
or
spending the next decade fighting over yet more iterations of
more
structures and processes.<br>
<br>
And that is: human judgement.<br>
<br>
Namely that we have to acknowledge and agree upon and protect
the concept
of human judgement within accountability of ICANN.<br>
<br>
Currently ICANN is a slave to process and legal judgement.
Everything
goes first through process. If one process fails, there is
another
process to go through. If that fails, another process. If you
run out of
processes, you create a new process (as happened most famously
with the
ICM Registry independent review win, and with the GAC advice /
ICANN
Board impasse).<br>
<br>
Tied in with this process-over-decision approach is the fact
that
everything goes down a legal and legalistic route. <br>
<br>
The further down a path something goes - which almost always
means that a
wrong decision has been made - the more legalistic it becomes.
Pretty
soon the actual point and argument is almost entirely lost. <br>
<br>
This is clear in minutes of Board meetings in ICANN. As the
group
approaches an actual decision, the information around it,
perversely,
grows shorter and more vague. This is solely because of the
lawyer
mindset. What should happen is that information becomes clear
and more
plentiful.<br>
<br>
This legalistic approach also rapidly becomes prosecutorial.
Rather than
talking through a compromise or reaching understanding between
parties it
becomes more and more of a fight. <br>
<br>
ICANN corporate grows increasingly aggressive; the other side
either
drops out or is forced to fight to the bitter end. The end
result is that
everyone loses trust in ICANN. It is seen to be protecting only
itself
rather than looking out for the broader public interest.<br>
<br>
Just look at the recent Reconsideration Committee decision over
dot-gay.
Yes, it has asked for a re-evaluation but on the most narrow
terms.
Nearly all of dot-gay's complaints were dismissed in purely
legalistic
terms, rather than human judgement.<br>
<br>
The process was followed. Therefore it is legally justifiable.
Therefore
we will not consider anything outside of that because it might
represent
a legal threat.<br>
<br>
But if you take the legal goggles off, the dot-gay community
decision was
clearly a poor one. And so it should be possible to look at what
happened
and say: there was a mistake here, let's fix it.<br>
<br>
It gets to the point where ICANN is afraid to admit mistakes
because it
sees everything in terms of legal risk. The tail waking the dog.<br>
<br>
This also happened to an absurd degree with dot-inc, dot-llc and
dot-llp
- where the company had to go and get an emergency panelist to
force
ICANN to halt the auction for the domains while its complaints
were
considered. <br>
<br>
This is what happens if you do not allow for human judgement in
a process
- it becomes increasingly difficult and rancorous and legal. <br>
<br>
I would argue that legal arguments should be used only where
human
communication has failed to achieve resolution. But in ICANN,
the legal
approach comes first and as a result any attempt to achieve
human
communication is quickly excluded.<br>
<br>
And before all the lawyers start jumping in: the legal system
itself has
huge in-built (and protected) human judgement systems.<br>
<br>
Juries are the best example. They can listen to legal arguments,
they can
even be directed by judges, but ultimately they get to made a
human
decision based on their own considerations (and biases).<br>
<br>
Judges also are hugely human in their judgement. They decide
issues based
on what they think of the defendant - and often the lawyers. <br>
<br>
The problem with ICANN is we have the worst of both worlds. The
Board
sits as the judge and jury. There is very little human element
of
judgement before the case ends up in a legal process, and there
is almost
no human element within that legal process. <br>
<br>
So if we want to see what I think will look like real
accountability to
the internet community, it will be to build - and protect -
human
processes, where people are get to make decisions using the
facets of
intuition, reason, compassion and understanding.<br>
<br>
Rather than view everything as a threat to be defended against,
ICANN
needs to view its community as exactly that - a community. <br>
<br>
My two (six) cents.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kieren<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>