[Area 4] [off-list] Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS4 Initial Scenarios

[Kavouss Arasteh]

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

2015-01-10 1:28 GMT+01:00 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

>  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 at afnic.fr>
> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 4:05 AM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org >>
> 'accountability-cross-community at icann.org'" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <
> rickert at anwaelte.de>, "\"leonfelipe at sanchez.mx >> León Felipe Sánchez
> Ambía\"" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> Cc: ccwg-accountability4 <ccwg-accountability4 at 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 at abenaki.wabanaki.net)
> or to the WS4 sublist (ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org).
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150110/e80e47d6/attachment.html>