Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability STRESS TESTS Meeting #9 - 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782461 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point. ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. We will be discussing the update to stress testing and the document Malcolm Hutty prepared. Update to stress test . Role of courts: Work to be done: convert these two stress tests into our table format. To apply our tests we have to understand what degree of enforceability the final reference model has. And when that is know we will revisit the tests under the conditions of the new model. ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format Corruption: no additional work needed. Capture by insiders: Will leave this as it is. WP3 may address this. Enforcement of contract provisions that exceed limited mission of ICANN: what investigate and respond to mean remains to be determined. ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests Member/Designator Representatives fail to honor voting instructions from their AC/SO: do we still need to keep this stress test? Suggestion to add a fourth paragraph to suggest that in addition to informing community that vote is invalid, there would be possible step of replacing person who cast the vote. We should not tie it to a particular office, we should use term "delegated representative". Part of continuum in case of misrepresentation. "delegated and designated to cast". Avoid Chair, office etc terms. Agreed language: Person designated by AC/SO to communicate the AC/SO vote Revocation and resassignments of ccTLD manager - Brought up as part of public comment. Suggestion to have ccNSO develop policy pursuant to FoI. Response to litigation - This does not insulate ICANN from jurisdictional reach of governements. NTIA statement - 4 stress tests were extracted from letter. Are they covered by existing stress tests? ST-NTIA 1 - It means everyone has opportunity to participate. If some do not wish to participate, it does not affect multistakeholder model. Important to articulate that it is opportunity and open ability which should be critical tests for robustness of model we are running. Once you opt in, you can't opt in and out. Designator/member opt-in may only need one. Do we want to consider whether that can be altered? Should we advocate that invitations to exercise votes are open invitation to participate? --> Invitation should be open to all ST-NTIA-2 - Do we need to ask for processes on AC/SOs to make sure the communities are aware of voting? We can add that need transparency rules as part of voting process. Have we built requirements into our community empowerment mechanism? Stress Test could be community choosing to ignore advice in its deliberations and voting. ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point. IRP is set up for making decisions that are binding on Board and not binding on SO/ACs. Are we now saying IRP is viable mechanism for appealing against SO/AC issues? Or are we saying Board has ability to force on SO/AC? Could ATRT review these cases and criteria? Consider ombudsman. ST-NTIA-3 - It is our objective to employ open, bottom-up processes. If they were specific decisions acting to exclude new participants, this commitment (para 89) would give basis for challenge. We should document this stress test. ST-NTIA 4 - None of SO/ACs have operational role although GNSO creeps into it through its implementation review teams. Not sure if needs to be done. We have distinguish between models in terms of responses. Stress Test Analysis for test 23 Malcolm Hutty walked the WP through <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20An... v%202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20An... %202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2 Most stress tests suggest IRP as way to challenge and assume that they are enforceable. It is universally accepted that IRP will be binding arbitration. It does not necessarily relate to scenario in stress test 23. Does ICANN volunteer submit to arbitration? We need to analyze how ICANN can be held accountable for that decision. We will need to come back to this topic on our next call. This document will also need to be brought to larger CCWG group and suggest that it be flagged as a document on reading list. We have more to do on document dated 20 June. ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. - Suggestion that the document depends upon 2 assumptions that should be tested with Counsel: Can ICANN decline to accept binding IRP? and 2) can anyone enforce a binding IRP decision in courts that recognize binding arbitration?