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.

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, 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.