<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br><br>Hi Avri,</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><b>From:</b> Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>><br><b>Date:</b> May 16, 2015 at 3:10:43 PM GMT+1<br><b>To:</b> "<a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> <b>[ST-WP] Stress Test and Accountability</b><br>If we were to be</span></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">challenged that some of our stress test go beyond anything that NTIA<br>could have done anything about, do we have an answer? </span></font></blockquote><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Although the stress tests appear to be mandated by the NTIA I see no reason they need to be limited specifically to causes or actions directly related to current NTIA oversight. Indeed much of what we are doing in Accountability are things that need to and should be done regardless of whether the transition takes place. There seems to be general consensus that ICANN's current accountability regime is broken. I think the stress tests are an excellent way of ensuring that the new accountability mechanisms we're designing are effective and comprehensive. Although some stress tests are directly related to the transition some, as you point out, are not directly so or go beyond the NTIA's current de facto remit, but in the context of our overall Accountability revamp I see no real problem there.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Best,</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Ed</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Is the NTIA<br>contract a hammer for all stress tests. Sitting here on Saturday<br>morning in Geneva during a break in the ITU Council meeting, I wonder. <br>There have been accountability problems at ICANN for a while, and<br>various of us do beleive that it has at least been partially captured at<br>various times (we may even beleive that it is currently captured to some<br>degree - though the better part of collegiality indicates we should not<br>talk about that too much). What has NTIA done on those occasions?<br><br>avri<br><br><br>---<br>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br><a href="http://www.avast.com">http://www.avast.com</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4</a></span></font></blockquote></div></div></body></html>