[ST-WP] [CCWG-ACCT] Revised Stress Tests 29 and 30

[Malcolm Hutty]

> On 18 Oct 2015, at 08:20, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
> 
> Greg had not seen that the ST work party published its recommendation last week for how to respond to public comments on ST 29 and ST 30 (attached and below).    I’m not suggesting the recommendations below would solve Greg’s concerns and Malcolm’s response, but let’s please consider this text as well.

I had seen those recommendations though, and do not agree with them; as I explained in plenary and in my previous message, I believe these amends test an entirely separate concern, and so remove the original concern from consideration.  I offer the the attached text as a better way of improving ST29, that remains faithful to the original intent. 

I hope my amends provide clearer explanation of the possible circumstances in which the adverse outcome being tested might be brought about, and more precisely what our proposal does to ensure that it is avoided. I think the conclusion (that the CCWG proposed measures are adequate to address this concern) remains valid, at least with our current proposal. It seems useful to state this, as the concern being tested is held as a real worry by some stakeholders This in no way impugns the legitimacy of separate concerns by different stakeholders that these same measures might also cause different problems of a different nature. But the appropriate way to deal with that is to ask them to construct their own stress test, or to do so for them, not to rewrite this one. 

If you decide to proceed with either your suggested changes anyway, or with Greg's, I would ask that my attachment is accepted as ST37 (or whatever is the next available free number for a new test), so that the concern originally being tested is not lost. 

Thank you,

Malcolm.