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@gmail.com <
mailto:george.sadowsky@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@linx.net
>> <
mailto:malcolm@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@txt.att.net
>> <
mailto:2024151933@txt.att.net>
>>
george.sadowsky@gmail.com
>> <
mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com>
http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
>> Skype: sadowsky twitter:
@georgesadowsky
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> <
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community