Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability STRESS TESTS SubTeam call on 18 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892161 Action Items ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday ACTION ITEM - Steve to split 3 and 4 ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order. ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20 ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements) Notes ST-WP - Call # 2 - 18 March 2015 ST-WP Wiki Page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents - ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday - ST-WP breakfast meeting on Monday, 23 March at 7:30 Stress test # 3 & 4 - Suggestion to split stress test into two rather than combined (refer to Sam Eisner comment) ACTION ITEM - Steve to split 3 and 4 Stress test #19 Designed to surface role of root zone maintainer (publishing function). Injunction is what would happen in this scenario. If that happens, the community could hold Board and management accountable to execute community approved policy. There is no immunity that goes to the root zone maintainer by virtue of IANA functions contract. Issue being posed is what is the root zone maintainer supposed to do if receives verification to publish root but then competing court order that objects to publication. Ingenuity clause? Can the community find a way to hold Board and management accountable to implementing community-developed policy. Whether or not the root zone maintainer has immunity or not does not change what the stress test is supposed to be about. This stress test could also be compliance driven. Raises issue of foreign jurisdiction and impact on this. ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order. Would ICANN be engaged in process to enforce views? What would ICANN's reaction be? What could the community do to influence this reaction? ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday Stress Test #20 How can community assert its views - relates to #19 (court order etc). Community should be empowered to ask ICANN to litigate and execute policies - Is it the right accountability mechanism? What if community asks ICANN to litigate but no basis to litigate? Insurability issue - health of organization - business integrity should be considered. Whether or not there may need to be any limits, conditions for this accountability measures may be a question for legal experts. ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20 Stress test # 10 & # 24 Tied to "golden bylaw" (mission creep). No feedback. Stress Test #12 Tied to supermajority to avoid capture. Look holistically at capture or undue influence. Standing CCWG e.g.: what protections are we building into that to make sure no entity can influence across stakeholder groups? What are the mechanisms in SO/ACs, what mechanisms of responsibility/accountability are there across structures within organization to have protection against capture? Do these need to be checked and reinforced? There is a broader issue. Evaluate In addition to super majority, what constitutes adequate quorum mechanisms within SO/ACs comprising community to guard against capture. ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture Stress Test #13 How do we prevent purposeful paralysis of ICANN (review redress mechanisms)? We set objective to have review redress more accessible, affordable etc. should the affordability and accessibility be restricted to community? Stress test #16 No feedback. Stress test #18 Relates to government capture. Stress test should stand but further dialogue needed with the GAC. Stress test #22 No feedback. Stress test #23 ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements) Stress test #14 No feedback. Stress test #15 No feedback. Stress test #25 Relates to CWG and ICG. No feedback. V8 will be circulated on Friday (doc, pdf, redline)