[ST-WP] Updated document for ST-WP: Stress Test Work Party

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Hey Steve ...  So Sorry for the tardy timing on my reply...  I dared to
take time time off over the w'end, but am now back on deck (although
perhaps like all of us more 'drowning than waiving in this pre Singapore
Meeting #52 week) ...  So that said (and i trust my apology accepted);
Steve, THANKS YOU  so much for this great work, it certainly should get us
well and truly  started...  Please see inter-spaced below some responses
from me *<CLO>* and I hope we will also get some feedback from the rest of
the ST-WP...

ALSO  - Question for you all...  Does anyone object to me transferring this
excellent work piece from Steve to our ST-WP Wiki page ?   We can/will of
course continue to work on this list via email  but we should I believe
also emulate/archive our work on the Wiki for the sake of both transparency
and of course to facilitate any direct contributions via that media...


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>


On 1 February 2015 at 10:50, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

>   Cheryl and James,
>
>  Just trying to maintain momentum for our new work party on
> contingencies/stress tests (ST-WP
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work+Party>).
>   As discussed, we start with the consolidated doc we developed in
> Frankfurt.
>
​
*<CLO>​ Push to gaining some momentum appreciatively noted...​*
​

​Thanks Steve :-) ​

>
>   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.
>
> ​
*<CLO>​ Can I ask ​*
*​ ​if we can agree to accepting those currently in red, additions from
Steve please? ​*

> 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?
> ​
> *<CLO>​ ​*
> *​I agree...  Anyone else??​*
>
> *​*
>
> *​*
>
> ​
> ​
>
>
>  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.
> ​
> *<CLO>​ agreed  but I seriously doubt we will get this done
> before Singapore though it clearly needs to be done ...  I also believe if
> we can tat we should try and take a bit of time together if we can find it
> when we all arrive in Singapore for an informal discussion,  Can we
> ascertain who arrives when   I arrive late Friday afternoon (ETA for
> landing is 6th at 1630 local time)  and could meet up with some of you on
> Friday evening perhaps... Anyone else available then???​*
> ​
>  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.
> ​
> *<CLO>​  I think that would be terrific if you do have the time...  Thanks
> ​*​
>
>  —Steve
>
>
>  On 27-Jan call
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414998>, 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. *
>
>
>
>   —
>  Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150202/efe684e6/attachment.html>