[CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being discussed
Paul Twomey
paul.twomey at argopacific.com
Mon Jul 13 19:32:33 UTC 2015
+1 With the limited time we have available, we are going to need to
focus on outcomes we need to deliver to the CWG - and then other tasking
for follow-up work, either by the ccwg or other working groups/processes.
On 7/14/15 5:19 AM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> Exactly Avri!
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> Sent: 7/13/2015 2:52 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being
> discussed
>
> Hi,
>
> I ask again, it this really the time to go down these rat holes?
>
> Are we trying to set up an argument by counterexample were we object to
> the major thesis about what is needed for ICANN accountability by
> quibbling about past events we could never come to agreement on? This
> sort of exercise often falls into the fallacy of compostion by assuming
> that a complex whole can be negated by denying one of its parts.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 13-Jul-15 14:32, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > [George’s note and this note were not coordinated in advance nor have
> > he and I had this discussion.]
> >
> > George.
> >
> > I very much like your proposed approach. I suspect the first step is
> > actually quite hard and contentious. For each of the incidents of
> > concern, I suspect different people have strongly different views on
> > what happened. It may require getting some neutral people to listen
> > carefully to the competing views, gather the facts and present them in
> > a balanced form. I am not happy having to say this, but I think
> > that’s the environment we’re working in. Many of the people have
> > strong ideas as to whether the right thing or the wrong thing was
> > done, and their presentations frequently support their conclusions.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:49 PM, George Sadowsky
> > <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Malcolm,
> >>
> >> [These are my personal opinions, and in no way are they meant to
> >> represent the opinions of anyone else or of any organization.]
> >>
> >> Thank you for this note. I believe that it provides a balanced
> >> perspective from which to discuss issues of accountability.
> >>
> >> I'd like to suggest a next step in the direction of due diligence.
> >> For each of the alleged misbehaviors, in Jonathan Zuck's or any
> >> others' lists, I suggest that the ideal way to proceed would be to:
> >>
> >> 1. Reach a common understanding of what the facts are and what really
> >> happened.
> >>
> >> 2. Characterize why the alleged misbehavior violated community norms
> >> or bylaws, or was inappropriate in any other way.
> >>
> >> 3. Discuss and decide what would/could have happened if any one of
> >> the several accountability models currently being discussed had been
> >> in force.
> >>
> >> 4. Discuss whether the proposed changes would be overkill, with
> >> respect to this specific incident only, i.e. judging whether the
> >> response is proportional to the alleged misbehavior.
> >>
> >> I know that this is not possible in the large, but I think that it
> >> would be instructive, certainly for me, to choose some examples and
> >> work them through.
> >>
> >> This suggestion is not meant to sidetrack the issue of developing an
> >> appropriate accountability structure for its own sake. As Malcolm
> >> notes, "accountability is
> >> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because
> >> they are
> >> desirable in their own right." That's an important part of the
> >> equation also.
> >>
> >> I seek serious conversations on this subject in Paris. Anyone else?
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> >> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2015-07-13 04:48, George Sadowsky wrote:
> >>>> But I would like to push back on your belief that past practice,
> while
> >>>> interesting, is not relevant to our discussion. I believe that it is
> >>>> relevant, if only to agree with George Santayana's statement that
> >>>> people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.
> >>> [..]
> >>>> But it should also help the CCWG, in that where there is factually
> >>>> verified and agreed upon evidence of out of bounds behavior by the
> >>>> Board (or for that matter any other organization in the ICANN orbit),
> >>>> one of your "stress tests"should be to discuss what kind of reaction
> >>>> that behavior would produce if one or more of your accountability
> >>>> models had been in place at the time. I would think that this is a
> >>>> necessary test of any new accountability proposal. Wouldn't not
> doing
> >>>> this be a failure of due diligence?
> >>>
> >>> Generally I agree with Jonathan when he says that accountability is
> >>> desirable per se, and improvements should be put in place because
> >>> they are
> >>> desirable in their own right, and should not have to be justified by
> >>> reference to some past misdemeanour they are intended to correct.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, the advice I quote above from George is also
> >>> compelling:
> >>> if we fail to address identifiable problems that have arisen before,
> >>> then
> >>> that would be delinquency on our part.
> >>>
> >>> So it seems to me that the question of past issues is not symmetrical:
> >>> evidence of past problems is relevant input to justify a proposed
> >>> accountability
> >>> improvement, but a lack of evidence of past misbehaviour is not
> relevant
> >>> input as to why a proposed accountability improvement is not
> necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Malcolm
> >>> --
> >>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> >>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.802.457.3370
> >> 119 Birch Way GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> >> Woodstock, VT 05091-7986 USA SMS: 2024151933 at txt.att.net
> >> <mailto:2024151933 at txt.att.net>
> >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com> http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
> >> Skype: sadowsky twitter: @georgesadowsky
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501
www.argopacific.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150714/3e88db2f/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list