+ 1 Avri and Paul On 7/13/2015 3:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
+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@acm.org> Sent: 7/13/2015 2:52 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@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@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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501
www.argopacific.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987