[CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being discussed

[Mathieu Weill]

Dear George,

That is useful food for thought, and echos some of our previous 
discussions.

Answering your question below :

Le 10/07/2015 19:13, George Sadowsky a écrit :
> Here's the question: Does the CCWG believe that the global public interest is_always_  defined by "community" consensus or "community" dictates?    Yes or no?
Our group does not make that assumption. because the answer, as you say, 
is "it's more complicated than yes or no". There is often not a single 
way to "act in the global public interest", which can not be reduced to 
a set of engineering rules or equations (as much as I personnally would 
like it to).
> I believe that the great majority of the time the two are consistent, but I believe that there are cases in which they diverge.   Is there any disagreement among us that this could happen?  In that case, what should a Board member do?  Which is the higher authority according to the CCWG's thinking?
We have to assume that disagreements will occur (that is actually 
healthy), and that it does not imply that the Board member of the 
community are "at fault", or will be removed instantly.

But that's a useful concern for WP1 to consider.

Mathieu

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************