Hey Steve ...  So Sorry for the tardy timing on my reply...  I dared to take time time off over the w'end, but am now back on deck (although perhaps like all of us more 'drowning than waiving in this pre Singapore Meeting #52 week) ...  So that said (and i trust my apology accepted); Steve, THANKS YOU  so much for this great work, it certainly should get us well and truly  started...  Please see inter-spaced below some responses from me <CLO> and I hope we will also get some feedback from the rest of the ST-WP...

ALSO  - Question for you all...  Does anyone object to me transferring this excellent work piece from Steve to our ST-WP Wiki page ?   We can/will of course continue to work on this list via email  but we should I believe also emulate/archive our work on the Wiki for the sake of both transparency and of course to facilitate any direct contributions via that media...


On 1 February 2015 at 10:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Cheryl and James,

Just trying to maintain momentum for our new work party on contingencies/stress tests (ST-WP).   As discussed, we start with the consolidated doc we developed in Frankfurt. 
<CLO>
​ Push to gaining some momentum appreciatively noted...​
 
​Thanks Steve :-)

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.  
<CLO>
​ Can I ask ​
 
​if we can agree to accepting those currently in red, additions from Steve please? ​
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?
​  
<CLO>
​ ​
​I agree...  Anyone else??​

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.
<CLO>
​ agreed  but I seriously doubt we will get this done before Singapore though it clearly needs to be done ...  I also believe if we can tat we should try and take a bit of time together if we can find it when we all arrive in Singapore for an informal discussion,  Can we ascertain who arrives when   I arrive late Friday afternoon (ETA for landing is 6th at 1630 local time)  and could meet up with some of you on Friday evening perhaps... Anyone else available then???​
 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.
​ 
<CLO>
​  I think that would be terrific if you do have the time...  Thanks ​

—Steve


On 27-Jan call, 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