[CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 10/17/15 9:51 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> In GAC session today, some said they did not understand why we needed 
> Stress Test 18.

While January is quite a long time ago, even in ICANN process 
development time, at the time when the BC provided their scenarios to 
"Work Group #4" I wrote:

> -- 
> BC  #6. GAC votes
>
> The accountability issue here isn't obvious to me. The bylaws create 
> several Advisory Councils, each of which may have distinct internal 
> processes resulting in the issuance of advice. A change in any AC's 
> internal process does not necessarily create an accountability issue.
>
> I suggest this item should be discarded. 

Here we are, still using our very finite time, on a scenario the better 
part of a year's aging has not improved.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151017/4c136a7c/attachment.html>