Dear Mathieu, all, I think the questions are quite a good start. „Greater”, „better” and „improved” are of course very subjective, but I do not have a „better” approach. I suggest we add a question that refers to the „powers” we identified (vetoing board decision to change bylaws, vetoing strategic plan, recalling board etc), something like: „does the mechanism enables the execution of the powers identified”. We might also want to add a category „support from CCWG members”, as this would be in indicator for community support (hopefully..) For the process, I suggest we design some sort of a scorecard, in which for every criterium a mechanism’s suitability (or effectiveness) is scored e.g. on a scale from 1 (very poor) to five (excellent). The total score of a mechanism would at least give some indication about its overall suitability. If necessary, we could give different criteria different weights, according to importance. Best, Roelof On 16-03-15 18:03, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Apologies for first cut off email.
A discussion was raised with WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working on.
In anticipation of our CCWG call please find below a first draft list of questions which should enable us to, at least, clarify the merits of the various options before we reach conclusions. This is of particular importance before our meeting in Istanbul.
You will be provided an opportunity to comment during the call tomorrow, but this can also be achieved via mailing list.
Best, Mathieu --------------------------------------- Key criteria to compare options :
1) Comparing enhancements to accountability
a) Aspects of accountability - does one option provide greater transparency ? - does one option provide better consultation ? - does one option provide improved review ? e - does one option provide improved redress ?
b) Qualities of accountability mechanisms - does one option provide better checks and balances ? - does one option provide better independence ?
c) Stakeholders : does one option extend accountability to more relevant stakeholders ?
d) Purpose : does one option enable accountability to more of the relevant accountability purposes ?
2) Effectiveness : Would one of the options be more effective ?
3) Simplicity : is one option simpler / easier / faster to set up ? a) Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to implement and to explain, internally and externally? b) Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and resource required from the community to make the mechanism work?
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community