Dear Mathieu, co-chairs, colleagues, I'm pleased to see the relevance, applicability, and severity mentioned by the co-chairs, as well as the subsequent mention of remedies, if any, and their robustness and the mechanisms available or necessary to address those contingencies meeting some minimum of relevance, applicability and severity. In my reading of the input from the Board Risk Committee (BRC) I see than much of the contributed contingencies meeting what I'd personally thought met some minimum of relevance, applicability and severity were present. I suggest that those items from the BRC's "Enterprise-Wide Risks" be eliminated or deferred which begin with or contain the phrase "possible perception", as perceptions do not, in general, give rise to a concrete case for which an accountability question could be answered. There are similar subjective ephemeral "risks" such as "lack of improving trust in ..." or "failure to effectively facilitate ...", "inconsistent communication". Again, it is difficult to know how each of these could be converted into a meaningful contingency. With a shortened initial set of relevant, applicable and severe contingencies to work from the work of the participants of the re-purposed and re-coordinatored/re-rapporteured WS4 could be more useful to the Working Group in the large than it has been up until now. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 1/27/15 12:32 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of our call, I want to share two items of relevance for the contingency discussion.
1) Questions for "repurposed" WA4
In Frankfurt we agreed to further investigate on the contingency list by providing answers to several questions on each contingency. There was discussion about the phrasing of the questions. Below is a proposal attempting to merge the Charter deliverable questions with our discussion :
* How relevant is the threat to the transition of the IANA stewardship ? ie how does the transition affect the likelihood of the threat, or the severeness of the consequences ? * Are there existing remedies in place ? Are these remedies robust ? * Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ?
2) Input from the Board Risk Committee
You may remember we had requested communication from the Board Risk Committee regarding the list of contingencies that they consider in the course of their mission, which includes overseeing Icann's risk management framework.
Thanks to Bruce Tonkin, our Board Liaison, as well as the members of this Committee, we have now received communication of this list. I have attached the document.
Our group should now be able to check whether the list contains contingencies we should add.
Looking forward to discussing this on our upcoming call.
Best regards, Mathieu Weill
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community