January 2015 - Ccwg-accountability4

Updated document for ST-WP: Stress Test Work Party
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 3, 2015

Feb. 3, 2015

Cheryl and James, Just trying to maintain momentum for our new work party on contingencies/stress tests (ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…>). 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. 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. Agreed? 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. I can take a stab at that during the long trip this week, if folks agree. —Steve On 27-Jan call<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414998>, the chairs tasked us with: Contingencies : organising further work (inc. feedback from Board committee) Agreed on a list of 21 contingencies. Agreed to provide additional analysis to these by responding to a list of questions, after discussion of an appropriate lists if questions. Request to the Board Risk Committee of the contingencies they use as part of their risk management, a communication has been received from the committee. Comparison shows a couple of items to be updates. Next steps to answer the various questions: Are there existing remedies in place ? How robust are these remedies ? Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ? 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 ? Reframe the questions and ask whether contingencies from Board Risk are either in WS1 or WS2 based on our Charter. Action: Add a specific contingency part to the communication materials that we'll edit in Singapore. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

2 2

WA4 list repurposed to + Call for Volunteers
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear all, Per chairs' request, I have repurposed the WA4 list (ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org) for the Stress Test Work Party [ST-WP], which is a natural evolution for the work. The archive will reflect this change, since the new subject line prefix will be [ST-WP]. The current ST-WP includes: Coordinator/Rapporteur: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (member) Volunteers: * Steve DelBianco (member) * * James Bladel (member) * Samantha Eisner (member) * Jonathan Zuck (participant) * Alan Greenberg (member) * Leon Sanchez (member) * Eberhard Lisse (member) * Mathieu Weill (member) * Thomas Rickert (member) * Carlos Raul Gutierrez (participant) * Camino Manjon-Sierra (participant) * Adebunmi Akinbo (participant) If you would like to join the group, please let me or Brenda know and we'll add you to the mailing list. The Wiki page for this group is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw Best, Grace

1 1

Next steps on contingencies
by Mathieu Weill Jan. 28, 2015

Jan. 28, 2015

Dear colleagues, We have made great progress in Frankfurt regarding the contingencies, and agreed to pursue work by providing additional informations regarding each contingency, as requested by our Charter. These elements are key to inform the stress tests. It has certainly not escaped your attention that Larry Strickling once again made reference to these tests as one of the key outcomes of our group. During the call yesterday we finalized the questions to guide your work, as such : /- Are there existing remedies in place ? How robust are these remedies ? / /- Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ? / /- While this is not a gating factor, is //the threat directly related to the transition of the IANA stewardship ? (yes/no) / It would be much appreciated if you could apply this set of questions to at least one contingency example before the next CCWG call so we can all check that the outcome is as expected, before digging even further. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

1 0

Welcome to ST WP
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear all, Welcome to ST-WP! https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw Coordinator/Rapporteur: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (member) Volunteers: * Steve DelBianco (member) * * James Bladel (member) * Samantha Eisner (member) * Jonathan Zuck (participant) * Alan Greenberg (member) * Leon Sanchez (member) * Eberhard Lisse (member) * Mathieu Weill (member) * Thomas Rickert (member) * Carlos Raul Gutierrez (participant) * Camino Manjon-Sierra (participant) * Adebunmi Akinbo (participant)

1 0

Re: [Area 4] [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] On legal advise concerning California non-profits
by Rudolph Daniel Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

For me, there seems to be clear consensus that it is absolutely necessary to have impartial legal advice on this issue. It may well emerge as a critical path in ccwg deliberations. RD On Jan 22, 2015 9:40 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin(a)ipjustice.org> wrote: > As a California attorney who has set up a number of California nonprofit > corporations over the last decades and who understands the fiduciary > relationship owed by an attorney to the corporation she represents and by a > board member to the corporation it oversees, I can say we must have > external legal advice to avoid both actual conflict of interest, but also > to preclude the dismissal of the advice because of claims of conflict of > interest. This matter is so legally complex that we need very specialized > legal expertise - not something a general council's office is best suited > for as they work on a broad range of issues for one specific client. That > is why ICANN legal dept often utilizes the services of outside council to > provide specific highly specialized legal expertise to the legal dept. on > particular issues. So I agree with Becky, Eberhard, Phil, Paul, David, and > Avri for all of these reasons. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Additionally, borrowing from a another professional field: whenever > contemplating surgery, get a second opinion. > > avri > > On 22-Jan-15 12:00, Greg Shatan wrote: > > I agree with Becky, Eberhard, Phil, Paul and David, for all their reasons > and more. If ICANN legal had all the expertise necessary, it would be a > bad idea, due to lack of independence, ethical obligations to their client, > etc. And even if they are reasonably well-informed on California > non-profit law, that is necessary but not sufficient for the task at hand. > Someone with considerable expertise and experience in corporate governance > (especially non-profit) and corporate structuring in a variety of contexts > (a "big brain," so to speak) is also necessary. > > (Notably, when ICANN has needed significant advice in this area in the > past, it is my impression that they have turned to the international mega > firm of Jones Day (the biggest thing to come out of Cleveland, Ohio since > > > Greg Shatan > > *Gregory S. Shatan * > > Partner | *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > *gsshatan(a)lawabel.com <gsshatan(a)lawabel.com>* > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> * > > *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el(a)lisse.na> wrote: > >> Eric, >> >> I was not looking at it from that perspective, but Becky make sense, >> ie if we get an opinion that is contrary to what ICANN has >> previously asserted in court it would put ICANN in a difficult >> position. >> >> Almost as much as their Counsel estopping ICANN on anything not yet >> litigated. >> >> >> So, we need "unconflicted" Counsel. >> >> el >> >> On 2015-01-22 16:49, Burr, Becky wrote: >> > Eric, I have great respect for the ICANN legal staff, but I¹m not >> > aware that anyone on staff possesses legal expertise on >> > international law and/or California not-for-profit law. More that >> > that, we know that ICANN has asserted various limitations on some >> > of the accountability mechanisms based on the ³fiduciary duty² >> > of Board members to the corporation. Whether the ideas in >> > question are good or bad, there is some skepticism - and a >> > conclusion by the Berkman Center during the first ATRT review that >> > additional legal research was needed, about the legal positions >> > asserted by ICANN¹s legal staff and its outside counsel. Given >> > the above, and ethical obligation of counsel to defend the views >> > of its client vigorously, I disagree with your view that ICANN¹s >> > counsel is well situated to provide the legal analysis we need. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > J. Beckwith Burr >> >> [...] >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

1 0

Re: [Area 4] Business Constituency Stress Test #1
by Jonathan Zuck Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Eric, It's far to early to be trying to winnow this list down given both the charter and practical concerns. This process should not be backward looking, except for inspiration, and should not be limiting except in cases where accounting for a particular scenario causes undo conflict. There might come a moment to be reductive, when conflicts occur but that time is not now. You yourself suggested the possibility of bias with respect to the BC and I think we're seeing it. These scenarios have been the platform from which this very concept has been launched and are due some deference. We can discuss further on the call but for now, let's keep the BC stress tests in the inventory. Thank you. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association Www.ACTonline.org<http://www.ACTonline.org> Eric — there is no need to assign probabilities for contingencies or for consequences. I refer you to the charter for our CCWG<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>, regarding scenarios: Review of possible solutions for each Work Stream including stress tests against identified contingencies. The CCWG-Accountability should consider the following methodology for stress tests analysis of potential weaknesses and risks analysis existing remedies and their robustness definition of additional remedies or modification of existing remedies description how the proposed solutions would mitigate the risk of contingencies or protect the organization against such contingencies CCWG-Accountability must structure its work to ensure that stress tests can be (i) designed (ii) carried out and (iii) its results being analyzed timely before the transition. Stick to our charter, and we’ll be fine. —Steve From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 8:24 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>>, "\"leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>> >> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía\"" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>> Cc: "ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>" <ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4><mailto:ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4>>> Subject: Re: Business Constituency Stress Test #1 Steve, At some point in this exercise we must assign probabilities for contingencies, as well as for their hypothetical consequences. Would you be so kind as to convey the Business Constituency's assigned probability for: 1. termination of the AoC between the USG and the incumbent contractor, by the USG, while leaving the IANA Functions contract otherwise unchanged? 2. termination of the AoC between the USG and the Corporation, by the Corporation, while retaining the IANA Functions contract otherwise unchanged? Sincerely, Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 1/11/15 12:27 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: Eric — I think we have a fundamental disconnect on the meaning and purpose of stress tests. You keep asking about past events, or about why we believe a scenario WOULD happen. But the purpose of scenarios/stress tests is to design plausible situations that help us test accountability mechanisms we have now or are proposing to create. Stress tests are not predictive. We do not need to justify a scenario, or show why it is likely to happen. Nor do we want to be preoccupied with past events. Indeed, the benefit of doing future scenarios is that we avoid fighting over our differing interpretations of past events. As a software guy, you need more than high-level principles to develop an application. Programming requires anticipating scenarios where users don't follow the expected routine. For non-programmers, here's an analogy: It's a good principle to practice safe driving in winter weather. It's a scenario to prepare for and respond to a specific situation, such as having your car spin sideways on a snow-covered road.

8 22

[Area 4] Naming the parts -- the RZM partners (was Re: 40 items added)
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 15, 2015

Jan. 15, 2015

Colleagues, For clarity I'm posting an excerpt from the Solicitation for Statements of Interest regarding Root KSK Rollover sent to the ksk-rollover(a)icann.org mailing list on 12/19/14 and again a few days ago. It provides a statement of the responsibilities of the RZM partners -- ICANN, as a contractor to the NTIA, Verisign, and the NTIA -- which may clarify discussion of who does what and what that is called as terms of art. > ICANN, as the IANA functions operator, in cooperation with Verisign as the > Root Zone Maintainer and the National Telecommunications Information > Administration (NTIA) as the Root Zone Administrator, together known as > the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners, seek to develop a plan for ... What the plan is for isn't as germane as the statement of who the RZM partners are and what they do as the RZM partners. This will be my last mail in this long thread. Eric

1 0

Re: [Area 4] Contributions of Rudolph Daniel to WS4 Initial Scenarios
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Dear Rudi, Responding to your mails of the 8th, to which a 9 page writing by Milton Meuller and Brendon Kuerbis is attached. Would you be so kind as to (a) complete an SOI and (b) find in the 9 pp .pdf one or more scenario or contingency, and as I requested of Mr. Kavouss Arasteh, it could be helpful if you would consider one, or more, of your suggestions, and offer statements of risk, consequence, contingency. If, in addition of these basic restatements of scenario or contingency, you could address the design, execution, and analysis of results, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance for your assistance in refining the inputs to our work product. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon > Good morning Eric.. > I would like to input this piece of information, into the mix if it > not already in tje data set of ccwg. > It has some interesting ideas perhaps also worth considering. > Thank you > Rudi Daniel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: File....icann globalizingiana Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 06:17:16 -0500 From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel(a)gmail.com> To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> This is the file. Thanks Rudi Daniel

3 4

[Area 4] Remarks by Larry Strickling and Fadi Chehade through ICANN51
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 14, 2015

Jan. 14, 2015

Dear all, Attached is a document I pulled together for the CCWG Drafting Team in October. It's a compilation of the official remarks/speeches made by Larry Strickling and Fadi Chehade at different events from August through October. The Drafting Team used this document to help inform its work in developing the Charter for the CCWG. The Chairs thought it may be useful to share with this WA4 group so that you could perhaps map the contingencies you are developing to the contingencies they list in their remarks. A specific example Larry Strickling gave at ICANN51 was a mechanism of Board recall. This comment was in response to a question so it was not included in the original document (attached). LARRY STRICKLING: SO I -- SO FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE NOTED IN PRIOR PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT THE ABSENCE OF A BOARD RECALL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY, THAT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE WITHIN THE MORE LIMITED INITIAL SCOPE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY -- NOW, THAT'S A BIG ISSUE. IT'S NOT A TINY ISSUE WHATSOEVER. BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES PEOPLE WILL HAVE CONCERN ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF -- WHAT PREVENTS THIS ORGANIZATION FROM SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL WHEN THE U.S. CONTRACT ISN'T THERE ANY LONGER. NOBODY EXPECTS IT TO HAPPEN, BUT I THINK ALL OF US, TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THIS TRANSITION, NEED TO THINK THROUGH THOSE POSSIBILITIES AND UNDERSTAND WHAT MECHANISMS EXIST TODAY OR NEED TO BE PUT INTO PLACE TO PREVENT BAD THINGS LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING. Best, Grace

2 1

[Area 4] CCWG4...clarification.
by Rudolph Daniel Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

1) In developing a scenario, I am really not clear the difference between a long term contract and a cooperate agreement in USG language. It seems that whilst ARIN's for example is accepted as cooperate agreement by CO via NTIA, the IANA contract can be interpreted either way? This would in some way impact on any notion of transition? 2) Icann contractually obligated to keeping any 2 of its 4 data centers operational for IANA related data. Scenario: 3 of its 4 data centers are breached. RD

2 1