[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
malcolm at linx.net
Tue Mar 17 11:10:13 UTC 2015
On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Renu,
> Many thanks for this great work. It definitely shows better in a
> 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.
I am a bit concerned a chart like this is apt to mislead as much as to
inform. Its format carries an implication that all these factors are
of equal weight; I do not agree that they are.
For example, in my opinion, the effectiveness of an accountability
mechanism has primacy: does it actually deliver the remedy that it
to the problem it is designed to address?
Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest from
legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed a
minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).
If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into
the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent examining
proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect chart,
rather say "use this if you like, but I don't think we should frame our
discussion around it".
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
More information about the WP1