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

[Malcolm Hutty]

Cheryl,

In our last call you said you would ask for my paper on Stress Test 23
[1] to be added to the reading list for Paris, and ask the Chairs
whether time could be made available to discuss it.

I see the paper has not been added to the Reading List.[2]
Did you have any more luck speaking to the Chairs?

Malcolm

[1]
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20Analysis%20Test%2023%20rev%202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131000&api=v2

[2]
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List+-+Face+to+Face+Paris

On 14/07/2015 20:24, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> This doc will be discussed Wednesday 15 Jul at 11:00 UTC during our next
> ST WP call.  It is also being packaged with other docs to be reviewed in
> Paris, since the ‘French freeze’ occurs before our call.
> 
> I updated what I sent on 12-Jul, after analyzing public comments on
> Stress Tests, and extracting 2 stress tests from the Board-Legal memo.
> 
>     Added both stress tests suggested by Chris Disspain involving
>     California courts.  See pages 25-26.
> 
>     Slightly edited ST #12 regarding internal capture prevention.
> 
>     Edited ST 20 per comment from RySG
> 
>     Edited ST 20&24 per comment from Sue Radel
> 
>     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 
> 
>     Added two questions from the Board-Legal memo of Jun 20 (Link
>     <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf>)
>     but we cannot analyze until the enforcement model is settled.(p.34)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regarding the ICANN board/legal memo of 20-Jun (Link
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/1831ae72/ImplementationandImpactTestingQuestionsforCCWG-0001.pdf>),
> Adam Peake went thru the memo and found more 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?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
> 

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA