[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence

[Mathieu Weill]

Dear George, All,

Thank you for providing me an opportunity to remind everyone of one of 
our first work product, which was focused on definition and scoping, and 
addressed the questions raised by Jan (and others) about what 
accountability means, its purpose, etc.

The document is an appendix of our initial report but can also be found at :
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/20150313%20CCWG%20Accountability%20-%20problem%20definition%20-%20advisor%20feedback%20-%20clean.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426238711000&api=v2

Always good to keep this foundation in mind.

Best
Mathieu

Le 09/07/2015 20:16, George Sadowsky a écrit :
> The Hippocratic oath, "do no harm," is as relevant to communities and organizations as it is to medicine.  If something is largely working but has flaws, it's reasonable to ask the question of what is the minimum change necessary to eliminate the flaw.
>
> In the case of accountability,  it is clear that accountability is a necessary component of an adequate governance structure. The question in my mind is how much and in what form. I believe that the advisor to the CCWG, Jan Scholte, remarked in an earlier intervention, the issue is accountability for what, to whom, and with what enforcement mechanisms. It's possible that the this easy WG has already provided a concise statement answering these questions. If so, could someone please point me to it; if not wouldn't it be useful to have one?
>
> In that spirit, I'd like to ask members of this group the following question: What specific events and/or activities can you identify In the past on any part of ICANN or its constituent bodies that current accountability mechanisms do not protect from?  how do the variety of current proposals address those shortcomings, and how in the past with these mechanisms have been used to address those specific events and/or activities?  If there already exists such a list, please point me to it; if there isn't wouldn't it be useful for some reality testing?
>
> I am not suggesting that it would be sufficient to engineer new accountability mechanisms that dealt only with previous behavior that was considered inappropriate. Clearly it's very possible that new behavior  by any part of the community considered inappropriate by any other part of the community will fit into new patterns and will not  replicate earlier activities. However, there's a lot of merit in fact-based evidence, and I would like very much to have the opinion of people on this list of those  instances where new accountability measures would have been useful and effective where existing accountability measures failed.
>
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
*****************************