[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Tue Mar 17 10:24:24 UTC 2015
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.
Best,
Mathieu
Le 16/03/2015 20:54, RENU SIROTHIYA a écrit :
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Drawing from the Mathieu's propositions, I propose a matrix for
> comparative mapping. Version 1 workbook is attached, if agreed then it
> may be further developed, refined, populated, and weights may be
> assigned and added to reach conclusion.
>
> * Inline text not in matrix form.
>
> *Parameters and Questions to Map and Compare Effectiveness of
> Accountability Options *
>
> *Comparison Parameter*
>
>
>
> *Corresponding Questions*
>
>
>
> *Option A*
>
>
>
> *Option B*
>
>
>
> *Option C....*
>
> Legitimacy
>
>
>
> Is one of the options more legitimate in its nature due to higher
> scope for transparency, inclusivity and rationality?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Legality
>
>
>
> Is legality of one of the options more apparent and/or easy to establish?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Feasibility (Practical)
>
>
>
> Is implementation of one of the options more practically feasible due
> to exclusivity of system, simplicity of design and legality of process?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Viability (Financial)
>
>
>
> Is one of the options more viable due to the simplicity of operation,
> including of level of attention and resource required from the
> community to make the mechanism work?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Acceptability (Recognition)
>
>
>
> Is one of the options more supported and recognized due to historic
> reasons or current legal and stability concerns?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationality
>
>
>
> Is explaining one of the options, internally and externally more easy
> due to its rationality and simplicity of design?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Utility
>
>
>
> Does one of the options provide improved review and redress?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Inclusivity
>
>
>
> Does one of the options provide better consultation and extend
> accountability to more relevant stakeholders?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Indispensability
>
>
>
> Is one of the options indispensable due to some legal and strategic
> reasons?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tenacity
>
>
>
> Is one of the options more tenacious due to higher potential
> of ensuring check and balance and predictability on one hand, and of
> mitigating capture and immunities on other?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Renu Sirothiya
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Weill
> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150317/e8578d53/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comparing Accountability Options_v.2_Mar 17, 2015.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 11112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150317/e8578d53/ComparingAccountabilityOptions_v.2_Mar172015-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comparing Accountability Options_v.2_Mar 17, 2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 180488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150317/e8578d53/ComparingAccountabilityOptions_v.2_Mar172015-0001.pdf>
More information about the WP1
mailing list