I strongly object to any removal of the community veto proposal at this stage of the work. I'm not sure on who's authority this has been done. Thanks, Robin On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Brenda Brewer wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community