<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1256">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">Exactly Avri!<br>
<br>
Sent from my Windows Phone</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<hr>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">From:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">Avri Doria</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">Sent:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">ý7/ý13/ý2015 2:52 PM</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">To:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">Subject:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being discussed</span><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi,<br>
<br>
I ask again, it this really the time to go down these rat holes?<br>
<br>
Are we trying to set up an argument by counterexample were we object to<br>
the major thesis about what is needed for ICANN accountability by<br>
quibbling about past events we could never come to agreement on? This<br>
sort of exercise often falls into the fallacy of compostion by assuming<br>
that a complex whole can be negated by denying one of its parts.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 13-Jul-15 14:32, Steve Crocker wrote:<br>
> [George’s note and this note were not coordinated in advance nor have<br>
> he and I had this discussion.]<br>
><br>
> George.<br>
><br>
> I very much like your proposed approach. I suspect the first step is<br>
> actually quite hard and contentious. For each of the incidents of<br>
> concern, I suspect different people have strongly different views on<br>
> what happened. It may require getting some neutral people to listen<br>
> carefully to the competing views, gather the facts and present them in<br>
> a balanced form. I am not happy having to say this, but I think<br>
> that’s the environment we’re working in. Many of the people have<br>
> strong ideas as to whether the right thing or the wrong thing was<br>
> done, and their presentations frequently support their conclusions.<br>
><br>
> Steve<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:49 PM, George Sadowsky<br>
> <george.sadowsky@gmail.com <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Malcolm,<br>
>><br>
>> [These are my personal opinions, and in no way are they meant to<br>
>> represent the opinions of anyone else or of any organization.]<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you for this note. I believe that it provides a balanced<br>
>> perspective from which to discuss issues of accountability.<br>
>><br>
>> I'd like to suggest a next step in the direction of due diligence.<br>
>> For each of the alleged misbehaviors, in Jonathan Zuck's or any<br>
>> others' lists, I suggest that the ideal way to proceed would be to:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Reach a common understanding of what the facts are and what really<br>
>> happened.<br>
>><br>
>> 2. Characterize why the alleged misbehavior violated community norms<br>
>> or bylaws, or was inappropriate in any other way.<br>
>><br>
>> 3. Discuss and decide what would/could have happened if any one of<br>
>> the several accountability models currently being discussed had been<br>
>> in force.<br>
>><br>
>> 4. Discuss whether the proposed changes would be overkill, with<br>
>> respect to this specific incident only, i.e. judging whether the<br>
>> response is proportional to the alleged misbehavior.<br>
>><br>
>> I know that this is not possible in the large, but I think that it<br>
>> would be instructive, certainly for me, to choose some examples and<br>
>> work them through.<br>
>><br>
>> This suggestion is not meant to sidetrack the issue of developing an<br>
>> appropriate accountability structure for its own sake. As Malcolm<br>
>> notes, "accountability is<br>
>> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because<br>
>> they are<br>
>> desirable in their own right." That's an important part of the<br>
>> equation also.<br>
>><br>
>> I seek serious conversations on this subject in Paris. Anyone else? <br>
>><br>
>> George <br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">mailto:malcolm@linx.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On 2015-07-13 04:48, George Sadowsky wrote:<br>
>>>> But I would like to push back on your belief that past practice, while<br>
>>>> interesting, is not relevant to our discussion. I believe that it is<br>
>>>> relevant, if only to agree with George Santayana's statement that<br>
>>>> people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.<br>
>>> [..]<br>
>>>> But it should also help the CCWG, in that where there is factually<br>
>>>> verified and agreed upon evidence of out of bounds behavior by the<br>
>>>> Board (or for that matter any other organization in the ICANN orbit),<br>
>>>> one of your "stress tests"should be to discuss what kind of reaction<br>
>>>> that behavior would produce if one or more of your accountability<br>
>>>> models had been in place at the time. I would think that this is a<br>
>>>> necessary test of any new accountability proposal. Wouldn't not doing<br>
>>>> this be a failure of due diligence?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Generally I agree with Jonathan when he says that accountability is<br>
>>> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because<br>
>>> they are<br>
>>> desirable in their own right, and should not have to be justified by<br>
>>> reference to some past misdemeanour they are intended to correct.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On the other hand, the advice I quote above from George is also<br>
>>> compelling:<br>
>>> if we fail to address identifiable problems that have arisen before,<br>
>>> then<br>
>>> that would be delinquency on our part.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So it seems to me that the question of past issues is not symmetrical:<br>
>>> evidence of past problems is relevant input to justify a proposed<br>
>>> accountability<br>
>>> improvement, but a lack of evidence of past misbehaviour is not relevant<br>
>>> input as to why a proposed accountability improvement is not necessary.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Malcolm<br>
>>> -- <br>
>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
>><br>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
>> George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.802.457.3370<br>
>> 119 Birch Way GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933<br>
>> Woodstock, VT 05091-7986 USA SMS: 2024151933@txt.att.net<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:2024151933@txt.att.net">mailto:2024151933@txt.att.net</a>>
<br>
>> george.sadowsky@gmail.com<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>>
<a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a><br>
>> Skype: sadowsky twitter: @georgesadowsky<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>