[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Tue Mar 17 17:25:47 UTC 2015
Missed your work when I wrote my email during a flight. Suggest we combine
From: RENU SIROTHIYA <renusirothiya at gmail.com<mailto:renusirothiya at gmail.com>>
Date: maandag 16 maart 2015 20:54
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
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
Is one of the options more legitimate in its nature due to higher scope for transparency, inclusivity and rationality?
Is legality of one of the options more apparent and/or easy to establish?
Is implementation of one of the options more practically feasible due to exclusivity of system, simplicity of design and legality of process?
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?
Is one of the options more supported and recognized due to historic reasons or current legal and stability concerns?
Is explaining one of the options, internally and externally more easy due to its rationality and simplicity of design?
Does one of the options provide improved review and redress?
Does one of the options provide better consultation and extend accountability to more relevant stakeholders?
Is one of the options indispensable due to some legal and strategic reasons?
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?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
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.
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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WP1