- Ccwg-accountability4 - lists.icann.org

Re: [ST-WP] [CCWG-ACCT] Revised Stress Tests 29 and 30
by Malcolm Hutty Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

On 17/10/2015 02:22, Greg Shatan wrote: > All, > > As discussed during yesterday's F2F session, I attach proposed > revisions to Stress Tests 29 and 30. Dear Greg, I think you have misunderstood how the Stress Tests are constructed. The Stress Tests exist to test whether our proposal is sufficiently robust to preclude certain identified adverse outcomes from materialising. The Stress Tests therefore posit that feared adverse outcome, together with a presumed set of circumstances that it could be feared might bring that outcome about. These circumstances, and the adverse outcome being tested, are recorded in the first and second boxes respectively. The current arranagements and our proposal is then inspected for measures (safeguards) that are relevant to precluding that adverse outcome from materialising. Those relevant measures are to be recorded in the boxes marked "existing accountability measures" and "proposed accountability measures, respectively. Finally, the adequacy of those measures as a means of avoiding the feared outcome is assessed, and the conclusion of that assessment is recorded in the box marked "conclusion". This is the way all the stress tests have been structured. Accordingly, while we might refine the presumed circumstances, it is the feared outcome that remains constant: it is the adequacy of the measures at precluding the outcome from materialising that is being tested. In your draft you use the box marked "outcome" for the conclusion (i.e. you are using to show the actual outcome you expect to result, rather than the feared outcome being tested). This is inconsistent with the construction of the stress tests. Unfortunately your drafting therefore omits mention of what is being tested, and for this reason is unsuitable for acceptance as a stress test. If you would like to redraft and resubmit, please revert the "Outcome" being tested to the original. Following the methodology above will help you to remain consistent with the rest of the suite of stress tests. Malcolm. P.S. I am copying the stress test working party mailing list. I suggest that for the convenience of CCWG any follow-up discussion be moved to the ST-WP list only. On 17/10/2015 02:22, Greg Shatan wrote: > All, > > As discussed during yesterday's F2F session, I attach proposed revisions > to Stress Tests 29 and 30. Please note that I split Stress Test 29 into > two parts, since the two paragraphs of the ST29 posed different issues > with differing answers. > > I followed the limitation set by the Stress Test Working Party that the > text of the "Stress Test" fact statement should not be changed. > > I look forward to comments. > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

2 2

Stress Test 37
by Malcolm Hutty Oct. 16, 2015

Oct. 16, 2015

Please find attached a suggested draft for a stress test on whether ICANN is a general content regulator, based on stress test 29 (as it existed in the Second Draft Report). Personally, I don't think this should be a new stress test; I think this is a mere refinement and clarification of stress test 29. It is the proposal from the ST-WP, which addresses entirely separate concerns, that should be the new stress test. But as long as this is accepted as a stress test, what number it is isn't important. Anyway, as you heard earlier, the text Becky presented about "clarifying" the limit on ICANN's ability to regulate Internet content is contested. Earlier this afternoon I sent a proposed revision to the wp2 mailing list to attempt to resolve that. Provided my proposal to Becky is accepted, I think the assessment that the current proposal satisfies the stress test remains valid; if it is not, we will need to consider it anew. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

1 0

3rd draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for Dublin
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

Staff and ST Team — attached is v3 of Stress Test analysis of public comments, which can be included in the reading package for Dublin. There were 2 changes from v2 that we discussed on today’s call: Regarding the new draft rationale for ST 18, we change from this The ST team also recommends inserting this rationale for ST 18, to appear before para 618 on p. 85: To this: The ST team has drafted this rationale for ST 18, to appear before para 618 on p. 85: Regarding ST 12, 13, 33-35 we recommend: The ST team notes that a small minority of commenters opposed giving ACs voting roles, but will nonetheless revisit its analysis of AC voting in Stress Tests 12, 13, 33-35. From: Steve DelBianco Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 at 4:00 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Cc: ACCT-Staff, Thomas Rickert, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Mathieu Weill, Becky Burr, Jordan Carter Subject: 2nd draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting #2 ST Team: I updated our public comment analysis doc to reflect last week’s discussion and my proposed rationale for ST 18. Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s ST call. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco Date: Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 4:35 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Cc: ACCT-Staff, Thomas Rickert, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Mathieu Weill, Becky Burr, Jordan Carter Subject: Re: Draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting | 11:00 UTC | 7 October As discussed on our previous Stress Test call, I drafted a new ‘rationale’ for Stress Test 18 and the proposed bylaws change. Please review (attached and below) and we’ll discuss on our ST WP call this coming Tuesday. Regards, Steve 10-Oct proposal for updated description of Stress Test 18, including rationale requested by several GAC reps: Stress Test 18 was among the plausible scenarios that could test how and whether the ICANN community could challenge actions taken by the ICANN corporation. The rationale to develop this stress test involves two factors: First, ICANN community members were aware that some GAC members had expressed a desire to change the GAC’s historical method of using consensus for its decision-making, where “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection”. Moreover, it would take only a simple majority of GAC members to change its decision-making methods to a lesser standard, such as majority voting. Second, the CCWG realized that ICANN’s present bylaws obligate the board to seek “a mutually acceptable solution” if it decided not to follow GAC advice. That level of required deference is unique to the GAC and not required for advice from other AC and SOs. More important, the board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution applies to all GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by GAC consensus, and even if that advice were opposed by a significant minority of GAC members. For these reasons, CCWG added Stress Test 18 to the draft proposal, and the stress test working party concluded that existing accountability measures were not adequate to let the community hold the ICANN board accountable for its actions if the board were obliged to seek a negotiated solution with the GAC. In order to address Stress Test 18, CCWG proposed an amendment to ICANN bylaws regarding the board’s obligations with respect to GAC advice. The amendment would preserve the requirement for ICANN’s board to seek a mutually acceptable solution, but only for GAC advice that was supported by consensus among GAC members. The rationale for proposing this bylaws amendment in response to Stress Test 18 is two-fold. First, CCWG wants to reserve ICANN’s board’s obligation to negotiate with the GAC for only that advice which is supported by a consensus of governments. GAC advice that is opposed by a significant minority of governments should not trigger the board’s obligation to enter bi-lateral negotiations with the GAC on a matter that affects the global Internet community. A negotiation between ICANN board and GAC should be reserved for resolving differences between ICANN and governments – not to resolve differences among governments themselves. Second, the proposed bylaws change would provide a strong incentive for the GAC to continue seeking consensus for the advice it provides to ICANN, which is the practice presently used by the GAC. While the GAC could at any time change its decision-making methods, this bylaws change would continue to elevate the influence of GAC advice that was supported by consensus of GAC members. Similar incentives for consensus policy and advice are already present in the ICANN bylaws, which require supermajority support for policy recommendations coming from GNSO and ccNSO. The rationale above is meant to explain why Stress Test 18 was developed, and to explain why CCWG proposes a bylaws amendment to preserve ICANN board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution when GAC advice is supported by consensus.

1 0

2nd draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting #2
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

ST Team: I updated our public comment analysis doc to reflect last week’s discussion and my proposed rationale for ST 18. Look forward to discussion on tomorrow’s ST call. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco Date: Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 4:35 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Cc: ACCT-Staff, Thomas Rickert, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Mathieu Weill, Becky Burr, Jordan Carter Subject: Re: Draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting | 11:00 UTC | 7 October As discussed on our previous Stress Test call, I drafted a new ‘rationale’ for Stress Test 18 and the proposed bylaws change. Please review (attached and below) and we’ll discuss on our ST WP call this coming Tuesday. Regards, Steve 10-Oct proposal for updated description of Stress Test 18, including rationale requested by several GAC reps: Stress Test 18 was among the plausible scenarios that could test how and whether the ICANN community could challenge actions taken by the ICANN corporation. The rationale to develop this stress test involves two factors: First, ICANN community members were aware that some GAC members had expressed a desire to change the GAC’s historical method of using consensus for its decision-making, where “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection”. Moreover, it would take only a simple majority of GAC members to change its decision-making methods to a lesser standard, such as majority voting. Second, the CCWG realized that ICANN’s present bylaws obligate the board to seek “a mutually acceptable solution” if it decided not to follow GAC advice. That level of required deference is unique to the GAC and not required for advice from other AC and SOs. More important, the board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution applies to all GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by GAC consensus, and even if that advice were opposed by a significant minority of GAC members. For these reasons, CCWG added Stress Test 18 to the draft proposal, and the stress test working party concluded that existing accountability measures were not adequate to let the community hold the ICANN board accountable for its actions if the board were obliged to seek a negotiated solution with the GAC. In order to address Stress Test 18, CCWG proposed an amendment to ICANN bylaws regarding the board’s obligations with respect to GAC advice. The amendment would preserve the requirement for ICANN’s board to seek a mutually acceptable solution, but only for GAC advice that was supported by consensus among GAC members. The rationale for proposing this bylaws amendment in response to Stress Test 18 is two-fold. First, CCWG wants to reserve ICANN’s board’s obligation to negotiate with the GAC for only that advice which is supported by a consensus of governments. GAC advice that is opposed by a significant minority of governments should not trigger the board’s obligation to enter bi-lateral negotiations with the GAC on a matter that affects the global Internet community. A negotiation between ICANN board and GAC should be reserved for resolving differences between ICANN and governments – not to resolve differences among governments themselves. Second, the proposed bylaws change would provide a strong incentive for the GAC to continue seeking consensus for the advice it provides to ICANN, which is the practice presently used by the GAC. While the GAC could at any time change its decision-making methods, this bylaws change would continue to elevate the influence of GAC advice that was supported by consensus of GAC members. Similar incentives for consensus policy and advice are already present in the ICANN bylaws, which require supermajority support for policy recommendations coming from GNSO and ccNSO. The rationale above is meant to explain why Stress Test 18 was developed, and to explain why CCWG proposes a bylaws amendment to preserve ICANN board’s obligation to seek a mutually acceptable solution when GAC advice is supported by consensus.

1 0

Draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting | 11:00 UTC | 7 October
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 11, 2015

Oct. 11, 2015

(Trying again since attachments failed on first attempt) Stress Test team, It’s time for us to analyze public comments regarding Stress Tests in the CCWG 2nd draft proposal. First attachment is a PDF version of the public comments on Stress Tests, extracted from the PC Tool excel sheet compiled by ICANN staff. Second attachment is a first draft of our analysis document, for discussion on our ST team call tomorrow (call details below). —Steve and Cheryl

4 4

Draft analysis of public comments on Stress Tests, for ST Meeting | 11:00 UTC | 7 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

Stress Test team, It's time for us to analyze public comments regarding Stress Tests in the CCWG 2nd draft proposal. First attachment is a PDF version of the public comments on Stress Tests, extracted from the PC Tool excel sheet compiled by ICANN staff. Second attachment is a first draft of our analysis document, for discussion on our ST team call tomorrow (call details below). -Steve and Cheryl From: brenda.brewer(a)icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> When: 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM October 7, 2015 Subject: Stress Tests Meeting | 11:00 UTC | 7 October Location: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ Wednesday, 7 October Stress Tests Meeting 11:00 -12:00 UTC For international time zones see here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+STRESS+TESTS+…>. Adobe Connect:https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. _______________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: STRESS TESTS For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. _______________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: COUNTRY Number Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA - A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA - B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702

1 0

Re: [ST-WP] [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
by Avri Doria Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Hi, I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privileged of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case. The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize. avri On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Ed > I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. > Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it > speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking > and discussing of almost theory. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri(a)ella.com > <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and >> the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be >> able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing >> aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of >> allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be >> part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' >> about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up >> multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its >> very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it >> aspires to be recognized as. >> >> It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs >> of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or >> another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either >> continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it >> may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that >> never lived up to its promise. >> >> avri >> >> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> >> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors(a)omadhina.NET >> <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment >> >> Ed, >> >> of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in >> the face until they blink :-)-O >> >> el >> >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >> On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net >> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: >> >>> Kavouss, >>> >>> >>> I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s >>> comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I >>> support and appreciate public comments but we should give special >>> attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put >>> those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received >>> from individual . >>> >>> >>> >>> I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater >>> weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a >>> comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the >>> idea, not to the person or the organisation making it. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made.
by Avri Doria July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Hi, I am sure I missed some, but the ones I found going through the email while doing some prep work earlier today. Please let me know of any formulation I missed. _Doria 1_ /Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the UN./ _Curry __1_ /Work to ensure that ICANN respects human rights within its mission and accounts for the impact on human rights in its policy creation, policy implementation, review and assessment./ _Doria 2_ /In order to enure that openness of the Internet within ICANN's mission may be maintained, human rights impact assessments will be done on ICANN policies [as appropriate]/ _Doria 3_ /ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operations/ _Drazek 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information./ _Arasteh 1_ (I know there is one but i can't find the text.) _Shatan 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights/ _Drazek as amended by Lisse_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights, inter alia, the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information./ _Lisse 1_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect fundamental human rights, in particular the exercise of free expression, free flow of information and due process. / _Doria 4 (with offlist help)_ /Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)./ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 3

Update for 15-Jul ST-WP call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments
by Steve DelBianco July 15, 2015

July 15, 2015

This doc will be discussed Wednesday 15 Jul at 11:00 UTC during our next ST WP call. It is also being packaged with other docs to be reviewed in Paris, since the ‘French freeze’ occurs before our call. I updated what I sent on 12-Jul, after analyzing public comments on Stress Tests, and extracting 2 stress tests from the Board-Legal memo. Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California courts. See pages 25-26. Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention. Edited ST 20 per comment from RySG Edited ST 20&24 per comment from Sue Radel Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl in public comments. See pages 27-28 Added a stress test on “rogue voting”. See page 29 Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests. See pages 30 – 33 Added two questions from the Board-Legal memo of Jun 20 (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>) but we cannot analyze until the enforcement model is settled.(p.34) First attachment is the updated ST doc for discussion on our next call, in prep for our presentation in Paris on Friday afternoon. Second attachment is redline from ST section we published on 3-May for public comment. Regarding the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>), Adam Peake went thru the memo and found more potential stress tests: 1. SO/AC Membership Model Q1. ST NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants? Q3. ST NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of capture? Q4. Might build conflict of interest considerations into ST NTIA-2. New test considering member powers (once known) and mitigate for. Q5. ST NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if SO/AC opt out. Q6. See new test mentioned in Q4, consider ST NTIA-4: Unintended consequences. Also Stickling's statement also says "How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions?" which could be the basis of a new stress test or stress tests: does the proposal interfere with security and stability of the DNS test, and, a second test: does the proposal a create a different set of accountability questions. Q9. Suggests need for a test on the affect of member rights/powers (first identifying what those are). See Q4 above. If still relevant with the new model being considered? Q10. Q11, See Q9 and Q4. Q12. ST NTIA-2 and also new tests suggested in Q9 and Q4. Q14. ST NTIA-1 Q15. ST NTIA-1, consider adding concept of member dispute resolution to the test, and recommend to create such a mechanism if found relevant Q19. Proposed test, what if GAC advice is accepted by the board and rejected by the community mechanism (test was mentioned some months ago) 2. Community Right to Cause Reconsideration of or Reject Board Approved Budgets and Strategic/Operating Plans Q1. - Q5. See Q6 section above re security and stability. Voting thresholds in the community mechanism (council) may provide the answer, but if not new test. 3. Community Right to Reject Changes to "Standard" Bylaws and Approve Changes to "Fundamental" Bylaws Q1. See Q9 in section 1. Suggestion for a new test. 5. Community Right to Remove Entire ICANN Board Q1. Existing test on reputational risk? 6. Independent Review Process Enhancements Q1. New test on: potential ramifications of assigning "due process rights?"

2 1

For Paris Freeze doc: answering public comments on Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

The attached doc reflects my attempt to tackle the public comments received on Stress Testing in our 3-May draft CCWG proposal. For each comment, I analyzed, updated our latest draft of stress tests in several cases, and gave an explanation to the commenter. There are a few items that need further exploration, which are highlighted in yellow. This is by no means final, but is adequate for inclusion in the frozen PC analysis before Paris. —Steve

1 0