Sarah, I'm copying your question and my response to the main CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as the discussion of scenarios has been limited.

Thanks for sending this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble understanding #8 (Technology competing with DNS) and why the consequence would be the same as that of #5.

Scenario #5 posits a industry specific financial crisis, and anticipates a significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues, hence registrar and registry failure, where those registrars and registries business models fail under reduced demand, hence continuity costs to the corporation which has made some "stability", hence persistence guarantee to the remaining registrants. Scenario #8 posits a technology competing with DNS, and anticipates the same consequence as Scenario #5, as you've observed. Distinct root causes are posited which have indistinguishable consequences. Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #5 -- domain industry specific events affecting business models ... Suppose a loss of return on investment for the industry specific pay-per-click business model -- the ppc business model coupled with "domain tasting" caused the .com zone to grow by a third. "Tasting" was ended by Board action a decade ago, if I recall correctly, so a decline in PPC could reduce the largest source of recurring revenues by a third in the space of one or two renewal cycles, with failures of PPC-dependent business models (I'm not suggesting that either the .com operator, or the corporation, are PPC-dependent businesses). Similarly, suppose second level domain registration of trade marks by third-parties no longer presents a dilution liability for trade mark holders. Again, and industry specific collapse of business models predicated on either trade mark exploitation or trade mark protection is certain, with a loss of recurring revenues to the corporation. Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #8 -- competitive technologies associating resources and identifiers ... Suppose a commodity platform vendor or consortium of vendors offer a resource and identifier association mechanism with user uptake competitive with the existing DNS mechanism and market. To the degree the non-DNS resource and identifier association mechanism obtains market share, the DNS market actors -- registries and their sales channels, the registrars, and the corporation, will loose revenue. If you are unfamiliar with non-DNS resource and identifier association mechanism, there was hosttables, which today could be distributed more timely than the every-three-days frequency we made distributions from SRI prior to the conversion to distributed lookup (DNS), meeting most use cases other than those depending on "rapid update" -- at zero cost to the registrants during that period. We should expect that researchers around the world are investigating successors to service and/or resource location applications -- some pursuing string-similar search, which has obviously matured into an industry larger than the DNS industry, and some pursuing alternate forms of loosely coupled distributed lookup. I trust that this explains why both #5 and #8 have recurring revenues reduction consequences in an otherwise unaffected general economy. Finally, a reminder that SOIs must be submitted ... Eric On 1/5/15 11:28 PM, Sarah Kiden wrote:

Hello Eric,

Thanks for sending this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble understanding #8 (Technology competing with DNS) and why the consequence would be the same as that of #5.

Please clarify.

Thanks, Sarah

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4

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) or to the WS4 sublist (ccwg-accountability4@icann.org).

Thanks in advance, Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon

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:'accountability-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 *****************************

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 *****************************

Dear Kavouss, I will consider how your six suggestions might be made sufficiently specific to allow statements of risks, consequences and contingencies, if any, and, for the purposes of application to our larger mission at hand, how tests might be designed, carried out, and analyzed in a timely fashion. It could be helpful if you would consider one, or more, of your suggestions, and offer statements of risk, consequence, contingency. If, in addition of these basic restatements of scenario or contingency, you could address the design, execution, and analysis of results, that would be very helpful. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon On 1/10/15 10:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear Eric Dear All Thank you very much Giood thought and caution What about adding the following Changes in the legal Framework governing ICANN Changes in structure of ICANN Changes in location of ICANN Head Quarter Major changes existing accountability mechanism ,Oversighting mechanism Among the risks you have referred to ,the most sensitive is unilateral termination of Contract CO arrangement i.e. would would replace that arrangements until new arrangement would in place. Other structural changes Regards Kavouss