[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Mar 18 08:52:17 UTC 2015

Dear Renu, Malcolm, Roelof & colleagues,

Based on our discussion during the call yesterday, I think we have 
touched upon some of the concerns raised as well as useful things to 
consider going forward.

First, we clarified this tool would not be used for systematic rating of 
proposals but rather as a tool to better understand the impact of 
various options and frame the discussions in a manner that remains 
focused on the objective requirements.

We have also received interesting inputs about the criteria themselves. 
Legality (following legal advice on feasability for instance) as well as 
synergy (ability for a mechanism to be used for several powers, or rely 
on existing mechanisms) are added to the list. However we need to try 
and keep this as simple as possible.

I have attached an updated version incorporating these inputs.


Le 17/03/2015 20:38, RENU SIROTHIYA a écrit :
> Dear Malcolm,
> I completely identify and appreciate that time is of essence and 
> prioritization is the key. In fact this is what motivated me to 
> suggest a matrix because such framework may give direction to 
> assessment. But if there is none, I wonder what would be the approach 
> for relative assessment of options? I'm afraid then evaluation would 
> be subjective and not objective/accountable.
> On your contention that 'weights of different parameters are likely to 
> be not equal', I again agree, and clarify that this why in my previous 
> mail, I didn't state scale and scores, but rather categorically 
> mention that weights may be assigned (please read after agreement). 
> [On this @Roelof (in mail of Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:49 PM) suggested, 
> "we could give different criteria different weights, according to 
> importance." I second that.]
> Further, I submit that if exercise of having a scorecard to underpin 
> the process is not undertaken, then
>   * different assessors will have different notions of relative
>     importance of a parameter,
>   * this way they will end up deriving different conclusions, and
>   * in effect there will be further deliberations and we will actually
>     loose time.
> In my considerate view, this is essential. Seems @Roelof agrees. From 
> my end if other colleagues agree, I stand to contribute on this 
> further, and while doing so as suggested by @Mathieu (in mail of Tue, 
> Mar 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM), attempt would be to adhere to agreed upon 
> definitions and to keep it simple.
> Best,
> Renu Sirothiya
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net 
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>     On 2015-03-17 10:24, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>         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.
>     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
>     promises
>     to the problem it is designed to address?
>     Questions of which mechanism is cheapest to implement, or simplest
>     from a
>     legal point of view, are rather secondary - at least having passed
>     a basic
>     minimum threshold (financially and legally possible).
>     If we're not careful we could divert a lot of time and effort into
>     discussing
>     the format of a chart like this, that could be better spent
>     examining the
>     proposals themselves. So rather than try to create the perfect
>     chart, I'd
>     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

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/20150318/f913c240/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comparing Accountability Options_v.3_Mar 17, 2015.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 11262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150318/f913c240/ComparingAccountabilityOptions_v.3_Mar172015-0001.xlsx>

More information about the WP1 mailing list