Draft criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms
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?
What time will the call be tomorrow? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Mar 16, 2015, at 19:03, 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
Dear Colleagues, Drawing from the Mathieu's propositions, I propose the following matrix for comparative mapping. This is version 1, if agreed then this may be further developed, refined and populated, and thereafter weights may be assigned and added to reach conclusion. *Parameters and Questions to Map and Compare Effectiveness of Accountability Options * *Comparison Parameter* *Corresponding Questions* *Option A* *Option B* *Option C....* Legitimacy Is one of the options more legitimate in its nature due to higher scope for transparency, inclusivity and rationality? Legality Is legality of one of the options more apparent and/or easy to establish? Feasibility (Practical) Is implementation of one of the options more practically feasible due to exclusivity of system, simplicity of design and legality of process? Viability (Financial) Is one of the options more viable due to the simplicity of operation, including of level of attention and resource required from the community to make the mechanism work? Acceptability (Recognition) Is one of the options more supported and recognized due to historic reasons or current legal and stability concerns? Rationality Is explaining one of the options, internally and externally more easy due to its rationality and simplicity of design? Utility Does one of the options provide improved review and redress? Inclusivity Does one of the options provide better consultation and extend accountability to more relevant stakeholders? Indispensability Is one of the options indispensable due to some legal and strategic reasons? Tenacity Is one of the options more tenacious due to higher potential of ensuring check and balance and predictability on one hand, and of mitigating capture and immunities on other? Regards, Renu Sirothiya On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, 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
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
participants (4)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Mathieu Weill -
RENU SIROTHIYA -
Roelof Meijer