- Ccwg-accountability4 - lists.icann.org

Re: [ST-WP] Spurring Board Action
by Steve DelBianco April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Thanks, Jonathan. Per our discussion today’s stress test WP call, we want to inform the rest of CCWG about this. Here’s a draft for your consideration: When ST-WP applies the stress tests to proposed mechanisms, we look at all proposed measures that are under active consideration in the CCWG. (Those are the measures cited in the right column of each stress test). When the CCWG and CWG package their proposals for public comment, the ST-WP can then re-apply the stress tests to what is actually proposed. Until then, the ST-WP is monitoring discussions in WP1 and WP2 and wanted to flag two proposed measures that have implications for stress testing. First, we note that the ‘Community Veto’ measure first proposed in Singapore seems not to be under active consideration in WP1, and is unlikely to make the cut for our first public comment document. As initially proposed, a community veto would enable a supermajority of the community representatives to veto a board decision, putting it back in the hands of the board. At the Sunday Istanbul meeting, a sub-team proposed limiting the community veto only to a list of specified board decisions. Further discussion revealed reservations about allowing community veto to block decisions of the board without citing standards or principles, and attention turned to enhancing other community challenge powers, such as Reconsideration and IRP. In our latest draft of Applying Stress Tests, we applied a strike-thru to the community veto mechanism in the 8 stress tests that had cited the measure. On today’s call, we concluded that the absence of a community veto would not in itself flip any stress tests from ‘Adequate’ to ‘Inadequate’, since the reconsideration and IRP measures are available to the community. So we are alerting the CCWG to this situation, although we do not believe stress testing reveals that community veto must be further developed as long as other challenge mechanisms are available. Second, we note that 6 stress tests anticipated another community power that may also fail to make the cut for first public comment. As explained in the email below from Jonathan Zuck, a proposal from the Frankfurt meeting would allow the community to force ICANN to implement a previously-approved Review Team Recommendation or consensus policy. Another suggested power would allow the community to force ICANN to respond to formal advice from an Advisory Committee (SSAC, ALAC, GAC, RSSAC). We note that several stress tests would likely flip from ’Adequate’ to ‘Inadequate’ if the community lacked any new powers to force ICANN to consider and respond to formal advice from an Advisory Committee. It’s possible that WP1 could address this concern by developing a power for the community to force ICANN board to acknowledge and respond to AC advice, since that board response could trigger community challenge mechanisms such as Reconsideration or IRP. This possibility requires some advice from legal experts, as described in Jonathan’s note below. In conclusion, we believe that CCWG WP1 could adopt the ATRT2 recommendation for a bylaws change along these lines: 9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the following language to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice: The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 From: Jonathan Zuck Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:05 AM To: "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" Subject: [ST-WP] Spurring Board Action Greetings! On the call this morning, we had a discussion of some stress tests that risk falling through the cracks. Cheryl asked me to briefly summarize the portion of the discussion dealing with stress tests which involved board inaction. You might recall that Alan Greenberg originally brought up the notion of "compelling the board to take action" and there are several of the existing stress tests that highlight the need for that capability on the part of the community. Specifically, ST 11: “force ICANN to implement a recommendation arising from an AOC review, namely SSR" ST 17: "force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory committees such as SSAC." ST 3,4, 20, 22: “force ICANN to implement a consensus policy or recommendation of an AoC review” Cheryl brought up the fact that 11 and 17 had piqued the interest of the CWG so we focused on those two. Stress test 11 was inspired by the recent breach at ICANN and the inability of the community to extract information about the breach. Without the ability to spur action, that stress test would fail. Stress test 17 was about recommendations that are ignored by the board. One example we have used for some time is on the issue of Name Collisions and certs where a fairly large outcry on the part of the community was required to spur action a year ago. Another example, near and dear to the ALAC is dotless domains where there was very specific advice from SSAC as well as consensus concern and the board was slow to respond. Avri brought up recommendation 9 of the ATRT with respect to advice which dictates the board respond to advice in a timely manner: 9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the following language to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice: The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so. The question then arose whether a board "response" would be sufficient to trigger the other review mechanisms currently under consideration by WP2 so it was resolved to discuss that with Becky and her team. Perhaps it would be enough to dictate that the trigger mechanism for a review is a decision or response from the board. If not, we might need revisit a specific community power to induce the board to vote on a recommendation so that the vote can act as a trigger for further review if necessary. Cheryl, I hope I have sufficiently stressed everyone out with the possibility of board inaction. Feel free to ask questions or raise issues I have forgotten. I'll clip the mp3 for the topic if that's helpful to folks. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck(a)actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org>

3 4

Notes, Recordings, Transcript ST-WP Meeting #3
by Brenda Brewer April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability Stress Tests WP Meeting #3 on 8 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52892510 Action Items * ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions published for public comment. * ACTION ITEM: Leave strike-through on community veto and alert CCWG. * ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam * ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. * ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG * ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call * ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min * ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Beran Gillan is on audio line 2. Further editing of stress test 18 since Istanbul 3. There are many anticipated mechanisms which we supposed would be part of the comment period e.g. mechanism of community veto - that was present in 8 of our stress tests. Community veto, however, is not being developed as part of WS1. May need to strikethrough some mechanisms. Eberhard has sent language for ST 21. Edward provided new ST (p.15) to be discussed Progress on ST 18. WP1 fully endorsed suggestion to proceed with change to Bylaw. Notion of how do we get Board to initiate action in proactive way - mechanism needed to force action. CWG identified set of stress tests as critical. 3&4 still up for discussion Expectation that we will apply stress test to what will be published for public comment. ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions published for public comment. Community Veto Stress test 3 litigation arising from existing public policy & stress test 4 new regulations or legislation. Proposal to leave strikethrough and alert colleagues as a warning. If no community veto, we would take it out. Removing community veto would not be fatal. --> Alternatives: reconsideration or IRP - these two mechanisms are close but not identical to community veto. Parameters are being set for reconsideration request (Cf Robin Gross' template) --> Community veto is not redundant ACTION ITEM: Leave strikethrough on community veto and alert CCWG. Forcing ICANN's Board to implement a recommendation ST 17 ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other SG. ATRT2 recommendation compels Board to respond to advice from AC. Is a response enough to trigger a review mechanism or do we need Board to make resolution/take a vote in order to have something to review? LEGAL QUESTION: can we ensure there is a response which relates to inaction of Board, not just responses that are triggered by action of Board? ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam If there is a response to issue, it is a far more high consequence such as proposal to spill whole Board. Spilling Board could be result of inaction. If inaction from Board, is it enough to trigger reconsideration or IRP? Where is the linkage? ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. It would depend on nature of response/decision. We must have clarity about triggers. ST11 Compromise of credentials WP1 and WP2 to ensure reconsideration or IRP can be triggered on inaction of Board. ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG ST 26 suggested by Edward Morris was added. 4. ST 18 will be discussed on next CCWG call. 5. Following stress tests have been identified in context of CWG work: Failure to Meet Operational Expectations 1. Change authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. 2. Delegation authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. 11. Compromise of credentials. 17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. 21. A government official demands ICANN rescind responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent ccTLD Manager. High priority should be given to this. On 13-14 April the CWG is having intensive work day Expecting long form document The CWG would have to build text around it to show how this would be applicable and how it is mapped. Suggestion to have Cheryl & Avri circulate CWG accountability mechanisms as soon as high confidence they are close to final stage ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests ST 21 TBD

2 1

Spurring Board Action
by Jonathan Zuck April 8, 2015

April 8, 2015

Greetings! On the call this morning, we had a discussion of some stress tests that risk falling through the cracks. Cheryl asked me to briefly summarize the portion of the discussion dealing with stress tests which involved board inaction. You might recall that Alan Greenberg originally brought up the notion of "compelling the board to take action" and there are several of the existing stress tests that highlight the need for that capability on the part of the community. Specifically, ST 11: "force ICANN to implement a recommendation arising from an AOC review, namely SSR" ST 17: "force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory committees such as SSAC." ST 3,4, 20, 22: "force ICANN to implement a consensus policy or recommendation of an AoC review" Cheryl brought up the fact that 11 and 17 had piqued the interest of the CWG so we focused on those two. Stress test 11 was inspired by the recent breach at ICANN and the inability of the community to extract information about the breach. Without the ability to spur action, that stress test would fail. Stress test 17 was about recommendations that are ignored by the board. One example we have used for some time is on the issue of Name Collisions and certs where a fairly large outcry on the part of the community was required to spur action a year ago. Another example, near and dear to the ALAC is dotless domains where there was very specific advice from SSAC as well as consensus concern and the board was slow to respond. Avri brought up recommendation 9 of the ATRT with respect to advice which dictates the board respond to advice in a timely manner: 9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the following language to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice: The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so. The question then arose whether a board "response" would be sufficient to trigger the other review mechanisms currently under consideration by WP2 so it was resolved to discuss that with Becky and her team. Perhaps it would be enough to dictate that the trigger mechanism for a review is a decision or response from the board. If not, we might need revisit a specific community power to induce the board to vote on a recommendation so that the vote can act as a trigger for further review if necessary. Cheryl, I hope I have sufficiently stressed everyone out with the possibility of board inaction. Feel free to ask questions or raise issues I have forgotten. I'll clip the mp3 for the topic if that's helpful to folks. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck(a)actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org>

2 2

Document for WP1 and WP2: Stress test 18 and proposed bylaws change regarding GAC advice
by Steve DelBianco April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

To: members of Work Party 1, Work Party 2, and the stress test WP While in Istanbul, the stress test WP had hoped to discuss appropriate responses to stress test 18, regarding GAC advice that might no longer be supported by consensus. We didn’t get to this in Istanbul, so I drafted a summary of previous discussions of ST 18, and a proposed a way forward (page 5). It’s now for WP1 and WP2 to discuss mechanisms/powers to respond to the stress test. I ran this draft by the CCWG co-chairs, who advised several key edits and agreed this was an issue we need to address, despite the political sensitivities. I cannot join the WP1 call on 1-April, but hope this document is sufficient for you to consider the proposed bylaws change. Best, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

2 2

ST WP bfast meeting
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

We have a room at the far end of the restaurant 😀

1 0

Additional Stress Test for consideration
by Edward Morris March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Hi everybody, During a call today regarding ICANN’s transition and accountability, David Post called for development of a stress test we don’t currently have. I’d like to present it to the sub-group for consideration with the recommendation we act positively on his recommendation. This would belong in Stress Test Category Four: Failure of Accountability. The problem is one some of us believe we’ve encountered with increasing frequency at ICANN: staff substituting their policy preferences for the policy developed through proper processes. Staff could do this intentionally or unintentionally. The result is the same. In this scenario a policy is properly developed (most often through a PDP) but when implementing the policy staff creates processes that effectively change or negate the policy developed. This is a major accountability problem and we don’t seem to be testing to ensure we have proper accountability processes in place to deal with it. I’d suggest we do so. I’m happy to help with this as needed. Thanks for considering. Edward Morris

2 2

Draft version 8: Applying Stress Tests to proposed CCWG accountability mechanisms
by Steve DelBianco March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

With the conclusion of recent Stress Test Work Party (WP-ST) teleconference meetings, we have now completed at least an initial read through of all 25 Stress Tests <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor…> (ST's) established at the Frankfurt F2F Meeting. While we cannot apply stress tests definitively until we have a defined mechanism/structure to test, we’ve done our best with the proposed mechanisms at this point in the process. The edits and modifications made by WP-ST are now included in the attached v8 document <Draft v8, in both doc and PDF>. We have also attached a redline showing changes between version 7 and version 8. During the upcoming Istanbul Meeting it is our intention to discuss Stress Tests 12 & 18 during the formal Agenda with the CWG . Your review of the current text in advance would be appreciated. Further on Monday morning at 0730 the WP-ST will be having an informal breakfast meeting (in Global) where we plan to discuss (at least) ST 21 in great detail. Whilst all interested CCWG Members and Participants in Istanbul are welcome to join us, it would be appreciated if you could let Grace know if you intend to join so adequate table space can be booked. Regards, Cheryl and Steve, for the Stress Test Work Party

4 3

Re: [ST-WP] nearly complete draft of Applying Stress Tests
by Samantha Eisner March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

Hi everyone, In advance of our call later, here are some comments, questions and proposed edits. Best, Sam From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 at 8:19 PM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, "ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [ST-WP] nearly complete draft of Applying Stress Tests Cheryl and team - the attached is a nearly-complete draft of how we might apply those 25 Stress Tests<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor…> to what the CWG and CCWG are presently considering. As we've said, you can't apply stress tests definitively until you have a defined mechanism/structure to test. Nonetheless, we'll do our best with the proposed mechanisms at this point. Please review over the weekend and provide edits. We can discuss on our call Wednesday 11-March at 11:00 UTC. Regards, Steve - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

5 4

Invitation: ST-WP Breakfast @ Mon 2015-03-23 05:30 - 06:30 (Omadhina)
by directors＠omadhina.net March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

You have been invited to the following event. Title: ST-WP Breakfast Exact venue to be determined by CLO When: Mon 2015-03-23 05:30 – 06:30 London Where: Hilton İstanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center, Silahşör Cd No:42, 34381 Şişli/İstanbul, Turkey Calendar: Omadhina Who: * directors(a)omadhina.net - organizer * Eberhard Lisse - creator * ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=ZWszcTEyb2hqaHRwZ2Jha… Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account ccwg-accountability4(a)icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 0

Fwd: Re: Stress Test #21
by Dr Eberhard Lisse March 18, 2015

March 18, 2015

All, as we are discussing on the call, here is my work in progress. el On 2015-03-18 11:20, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: > Steve, Cheryl, > > have a look at my work-in-progress of a position-paper, ie trying > to look at this comprehensively. > > I think the scenarios are ok, but we need to look at Proposed > Measures, and, we eventually need to distill this into a table > fitting on one page, of course :-)-O > > So perhaps it's ok to circulate it to the ST-WP as is and then > finalize it in IST, but we can discuss this today on the call. > > el > > On 2015-03-17 15:48, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: >> Steve, >> >> you didn't receive, because I didn't send them yet. >> >> Working on it. >> >> el >> >> >> On 2015-03-17 15:42, Steve DelBianco wrote: >>> Eberhard — didn’t receive your edits on this particular >>> stress test (see below). If you get it to me tonight I can >>> paste into the PDF for discussion on our upcoming stress test >>> call. I realize you wrote back on 8-March indicating we had >>> written ST#21 incorrectly, and we want your help to make it >>> right. >>> >>> —Steve >> [...] >> > -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0