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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Hi Team :-)

Just letting you know I have transitioned the great work Steve did for us
across to our Wiki page, and we can refer to this at the CCWG Call later
today/tomorrow.  You will find the page here
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work+Party>
  (
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work+Party)
 and I invite you all to go look it over and make any contributions or
comments you think fit at this stage...

Regards,


*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.
>
>   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.   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?
>
>
>  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.  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.
>
>  —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/20150203/abe84818/attachment.html>