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/201...>) 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/201...>), 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?"