Eric, Sorry but I don’t recall (and cannot now find) your prior comments on BC stress tests. I was definitely not ignoring you! Could you re-send to me, please? Meanwhile, you may notice that I reduced the length of the BC stress tests when adapting them to your format, including ‘Consequences’. Hope that was part of what you were looking for. Thanks, Steve From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>> Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, "\"leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía\"" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>> Subject: [off-list] Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS4 Initial Scenarios Steve, I commented on the BC "stress tests" several weeks ago ... Do you think the best course of action is to ignore comment and just paste into the draft? Eric On 1/9/15 2:29 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: Thanks to eric for first draft and the updates below. Starting with Mathieu’s markup version, I added several of the scenarios that the BC submitted in its stress tests<http://bizconst.org/stresstests> in May-2014 (attached markup). Best, Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 4:05 AM To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> 'accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:%27accountability-cross-community@icann.org>'" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, "\"leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía\"" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS4 Initial Scenarios Thanks Eric, The clarifications are useful to me. Maybe they could be added in the document ? This would be useful in the perspective of publishing this beyond our group as part of an interim report for example. regarding #1 and #2, I would request the support of Eberhard to ensure our use of vocabulary for these types of IANA requests is in harmony with the ccNSO's framework of interpretation WG final report (I read it but am still a bit unsure...). Best Mathieu Le 08/01/2015 19:59, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit : Dear Mathieu, Thank you for the revision. To respond to the comment re: clarification of the difference(s) between scenarios #1 and #2. Scenario #1 addresses the possibility that additions, modifications or deletions of strings within the IANA root zone are, for some reason, not accomplished. The zone is frozen. No TLDs added, no TLDs deleted. Scenario #2 addresses the possibility that changes to delegations are, for some reason, not accomplished. Delegations from the zone are frozen. No NS records are updated. They could be merged though I personally see freezing the zone as a different form of failure than refusing to make requested changes to delegations. To respond to the comment re: clarification of the difference(s) between scenarios #5 and #6. Hyperinflation (Weimar Republic, June 1921 to January 1924) or a global financial crisis (2007 - 2008) would have an effect on the corporation's reserves, which a domain-industry-specific collapse would not. Both would reduce recurring revenues, but the latter would not necessarily compromise the reserve fund, and the former would. So #5 is survivable, until the reserve is exhausted, #6 is not. Please let me know your thoughts. I'll review the comments of others today and tomorrow and post a revision on Saturday. The revision will include a first "cook book recipes" for designing, conducting and analyzing each scenario hypothetically. The capture and abuse of accountability scenarios are welcome additions. Best, Eric On 1/8/15 8:56 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote: Dear Eric, Once again thank you for this very useful first list. I find it is already quite advanced. I attach a revised version with several personal comments and proposals, including a couple of additional scenarios around capture on the one side, the ability for a minority of stakeholders to abuse accountability mechanisms to effectively paralyze Icann. Best, Mathieu Le 06/01/2015 07:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit : Colleagues, Attached please find an initial set of scenarios, in two pages, in .pdf and .docx formats. Feedback via email please, either to me directly (ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>) or to the WS4 sublist (ccwg-accountability4@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org>). Thanks in advance, Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************