Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Stress Tests meeting on 7 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pqVYAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question Notes Review of analysis of public comments on Second Draft Areas of consensus - no commenters expresses overall concerns with STs. Stress tests on capture or unintended consequences of changes are areas needing clarification. Is our analysis of ST 35 (unintended consequences of operationalizing advisory groups) complete? No feedback. Requests for New stress tests: Conduct new stress test on deadlock over approving changes to fundamental bylaws and blocking changes to regular bylaws. Should this be taken on? The ST-WP could respond to comment and explain why it cannot be addressed. No conclusion. Areas of convergence: 1) stress test 21 regarding revocation and reassignment. We stayed away from it per CWG-stewardship. ccNSO indicated that policy is underway. We should retain ST21 analysis ant not recommend other actions. No feedback. 2) Stress tests 29 and 30 - submissions were concerned with content regulation. 7 objected to inclusion. Contract enforcement would not be affected by mission and core values. Suggest adding something that would carve out contract enforcement so that it would not be affected by IRP; 3) Stress test 18. 16 comments were in favor of Bylaws changes. 4 comments were opposed to Bylaws changes. Olga in LA commented that governments did not submit comment but are against stress test 18. Suggestion to remove freedom of expression example. No objection. How does one instruct ICANN Board? Board needs to understand level of support. Board action is subject to IRP if top down - outside bylaws - if went into content. We are awaiting text from GAC that would reframe ST18 - instructing Board on how it understands advice. Conclusion is we should clarify ICANN Bylaw. Request for rationale. Is the GAC working on text - should we wait for that or proceed with writing new rationale? Feedback: - The perspective of the bylaw changes from the Board does not change the essence of ST 18 but it does consider differently how the GAC makes its decisions. It does not change our concern for this ST 18. - If bylaw change sets out clearly obligation is only to negotiate a solution and only kicks in if the Board has rejected consensus-based advice (GAC free to define consensus as appropriate). The re-writing by GAC individuals has not got to GAC-wide exchange yet. Need CCWG explication of rationale and purpose in tandem with this effort. - Cannot understand why ST 18 is needed. - Fail to see what problem is. ST 18's purpose is to skip engagement step when GAC provides advice to Board. If no solution can be found, ICANN Board will state why advice was not followed. Board has ability to reject GAC advice. what is advantage to skip engagement steps? - It needs to be clear how this relates to transition requirement. ACTION ITEM - Rewrite rationale for stress test 18. Address Rafael's engagement process related question