-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bc-gnso] update on CCWG -Accountability, regading Stress Tests
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>
Date: Sun, February 01, 2015 4:15 am
To: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org>
As your CSG rep on the CCWG – Accountability, I’m trying to maintain momentum on contingencies/stress tests (ST-WP). As discussed, we start with the consolidated doc we developed in Frankfurt.On page 1, added excerpt from our charter, regarding our required deliverables for Stress Testing.On page 2, added a table showing how the original 25 stress tests mapped to the 5 consolidated categories. This captures the narrative and consequences developed by Work Team 4.On page 4, added Enterprise-Wide Risks identified by the ICANN Board Risk Committee (27-Jan-2015). The chairs asked us compare to our list and see if changes are suggested. I mapped these items to our 5 stress test categories, noting in red those that are not covered.One ‘risk’ identified by ICANN’s board really caught my eye:Perception of failure to implement and help achieve a global multi-stakeholder distributed IG ecosystem according to the widely accepted Net Mundial PrinciplesOn the CCWG call, I flagged this as far outside ICANN’s mission and an example of top-down scope-creep by management.2 risks that are not explicitly listed in our categories include loss of confidence in M-S model as practiced by iCANN, and lack of capacity to accommodate new stakeholders. I think we can add those to categories IV and V.Before we get to Singapore, we should draft another action item from the chairs: Add a specific contingency. I think of this as example application of stress test against recommended accountability mechanisms. Could do this after we have sufficient consensus around accountability mechanisms to evaluate. Alternatively, we could perform stress test analysis on the Requirements we developed in Frankfurt.—Steve—Steve DelBiancoExecutive DirectorNetChoice+1.202.420.7482