[ST-WP] For 15-Jul ST-WP call: Updating our Stress Tests to reflect queries and public comments

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thanks for this Steve...
On Jul 13, 2015 11:23 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

>   As promised on our 8-Jul call, I updated our section on Stress Tests to
> reflect our discussion:
>
>  Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving California
> courts.  See pages 25-26.
>
>  Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention.
>
>  Added 2 stress tests suggested by Post & Kehl in public comments.  See
> pages 27-28
>
>  Added a stress test on “rogue voting”.  See page 29
>
>  Added all 4 of the NTIA suggested stress tests.  See pages 30 - 33
>
>
>  First attachment is the updated ST doc for discussion on our next call,
> in prep for our presentation in Paris on Friday afternoon.
>  Second attachment is redline from ST section we published on 3-May for
> public comment.
>  Third attachment is the public comment notes document we discussed last
> week.
>
>  Still need to review the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf>).
> At our request, Adam Peake went thru the memo and found many potential
> stress tests:
>
>  1. SO/AC Membership Model
>
> Q1.  ST NTIA-3: Barriers to entry for new participants?
> Q3.  ST NTIA-2: Address the potential risk of capture?
> Q4.  Might build conflict of interest considerations into ST NTIA-2.  New test
> considering member powers (once known) and mitigate for.
> Q5.  ST NTIA-1: Test preservation of the multistakeholder model if SO/AC opt
> out.
> Q6.  See new test mentioned in Q4, consider ST NTIA-4: Unintended consequences.
> Also Stickling's statement also says "How can the Working
> Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools
> will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during
> and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different
> set of accountability questions?" which could be the basis of a
> new stress test or stress tests: does the proposal interfere with security and
> stability of the DNS  test, and, a second test: does the proposal a
> create a different set of accountability questions.
> Q9.  Suggests need for a test on the affect of member rights/powers (first identifying
> what those are). See Q4 above.  If still relevant with the new
> model being considered?
> Q10. Q11, See Q9 and Q4.
> Q12. ST NTIA-2 and also new tests suggested in Q9 and Q4.
> Q14. ST NTIA-1
> Q15. ST NTIA-1, consider adding concept of member dispute resolution to the
> test, and recommend to create such a mechanism if found relevant
> Q19. Proposed test, what if GAC advice is accepted by the board and rejected
> by the community mechanism (test was mentioned some months ago)
>
>  2. Community Right to Cause Reconsideration of or Reject Board Approved Budgets
> and Strategic/Operating Plans
>
> Q1. - Q5.  See Q6 section above re security and stability. Voting thresholds
> in the community mechanism (council) may provide the answer,
> but if not new test.
>
>  3. Community Right to Reject Changes to "Standard" Bylaws and Approve Changes
> to "Fundamental" Bylaws
>
> Q1.  See Q9 in section 1.  Suggestion for a new test.
>
>  5. Community Right to Remove Entire ICANN Board
>
> Q1.  Existing test on reputational risk?
>
>
>  6. Independent Review Process Enhancements
>
> Q1.  New test on: potential ramifications of assigning "due process
> rights?"
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150714/b08bfa61/attachment.html>