[WP1] board inaction stress tests
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Thu Apr 9 21:22:54 UTC 2015
Hi Steve,
Maintaining my question to Becky for clarity, but I of course see no
harm in reinforcing support to this ATRT2 recommendation.
Le 09/04/2015 23:06, Steve DelBianco a écrit :
> I would be quite surprised if the new IRP could challenge the board on
> inaction.
>
> But even so, the bylaws change that Avri identified from ATRT2 should
> have been implemented by the board by this point.
>
> We should call attention to this bylaws change in our recommendations,
> since the community might need that to force the board to make a
> decision about formal AC advice. It’s that decision which triggers
> the ability for community to challenge the decision vir
> Reconsideration or IRP.
>
>
> From: Mathieu Weill
> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill
> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 4:50 PM
> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
> Cc: Becky Burr
> Subject: Re: [WP1] board inaction stress tests
>
> Hi all,
>
> I understand our requirement is that "the community", or even parts of
> it, have the ability to challenge the Board for not acting on
> something (such as a review team recommendation).
>
> I thought that, thanks to the extended standing approach of the IRP,
> as well as its extended standards of review, the community, or parts
> of it, would have standing to challenge an inaction by the Board ?
>
> I am copying Becky to check whether I am totally off-tracks ?
>
> Best,
> Mathieu
> Le 09/04/2015 22:43, Drazek, Keith a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks Jonathan.
>>
>> I agree this is a concern and a gap that needs to be addressed.
>>
>> Board inaction is a risk if it prevents the community from triggering
>> the mechanisms we’re currently designing, so we need to ensure those
>> hooks are in place.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> *From:*wp1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jonathan Zuck
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2015 3:04 PM
>> *To:* Thomas Rickert
>> *Cc:* wp1 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [WP1] board inaction stress tests
>>
>> Thanks Thomas. I think there’s consensus that we shouldn’t rely only
>> on the “spill the board” option. Avri’s point is that there was a
>> recommendation (already through a public comment period _but as yet
>> unimplemented_) by ATRT2 to update the bylaws to include that
>> language. All I’m suggesting at this point is that we roll it into
>> what we’re doing here (as we are with many AoC commitments) to
>> address what would otherwise be a fairly glaring hole in our efforts.
>> This way we’ve made a best effort at coverage of the stress tests. If
>> the legal team comes back and says it is not enough to trigger a
>> review, we can revisit it on the second pass, no?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> *From: *Thomas Rickert
>> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM
>> *To: *Jonathan Zuck
>> *Cc: *"wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
>> *Subject: *Re: [WP1] board inaction stress tests
>>
>> Jonathan, all,
>>
>> I would like to share a few thoughts on this with you.
>>
>> - I understand that the legal sub team is reaching out to the firms
>> we use to get an answer to the question whether there is a
>> possibility for the community to call the board to action. If there
>> was an affirmative response to that, the stress tests would not fail.
>>
>> - If there were no such possibility to call the board to action,
>> there would still be the possibility to remove the board. I
>> understand that not all issues with the Board should be resolved by
>> using this nuclear option, I still think this is a way the board can
>> be threatened to take action requested by the community. Thus, I am
>> not sure the response to the stress test would inevitably be
>> „inadequate“. Avri’s point is a very good one. By requesting the
>> Board to provide information on progress made and action / inaction,
>> the Board is forced to deal with recommendations and provide a
>> rationale for their (in)activity. One of the concerns would certainly
>> be around security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. If the Board
>> chooses to ignore a recommendation by the SSAC and puts that in
>> writing, inaction would likely be a violation of the bylaws we are
>> working on and could lead to removing the Board. To me, Avri’s
>> recommendation combined with the possibility to get the board
>> removed, could be deemed a sufficient response to the stress test.
>>
>> It is imperative that we closely collaborate with the CWG on this, so
>> I guess it would be worthwhile to discuss with the CWG as to when
>> they would deem a response adequate or inadequate so that we apply
>> the same standards.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> Am 09.04.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org
>> <mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>>:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We didn't end up with time for this on the Wenesday WP1 call but
>> I, and others, continue to be concerned about scenarios where the
>> board fails to act. 6 of the approved stress tests involve a
>> failure to act on the part of the board (as opposed to a decision
>> we can oppose) and, as such, will not evaluate well with what
>> appears to be the current draft for public comment. There's a
>> proposed bylaw change from ATRT2 that should help, along with
>> some minor language changes from WP2.
>>
>> When ST-WP applies the stress tests to proposed mechanisms, we
>> look at all proposed measures that are under active consideration
>> in the CCWG. (Those are the measures cited in the right column of
>> each stress test). When the CCWG and CWG package their proposals
>> for public comment, the ST-WP can then re-apply the stress tests
>> to what is actually proposed.
>>
>> 6 stress tests anticipated a community power that may fail to
>> make the cut for first public comment: a proposal from the
>> Frankfurt meeting would allow the community to force ICANN to
>> implement a previously-approved Review Team Recommendation or
>> consensus policy. Another suggested power would allow the
>> community to force ICANN to respond to formal advice from an
>> Advisory Committee (SSAC, ALAC, GAC, RSSAC).
>>
>> The ST-WP notes that several stress tests would likely flip from
>> ’Adequate’ to ‘Inadequate’ if the community lacked any new powers
>> to force ICANN to consider and respond to formal advice from an
>> Advisory Committee.
>>
>> You might recall that Alan Greenberg originally brought up the
>> notion of "compelling the board to take action” in Frankfurt and
>> there are several of the existing stress tests that highlight the
>> need for that capability on the part of the community. Specifically,
>>
>> Stress test 11 was inspired by the recent breach at ICANN and the
>> inability of the community to extract information about the
>> breach. Without the ability to spur action, that stress test
>> would fail. This stress test relies upon the community’s
>> ability to “force ICANN to implement a recommendation arising
>> from an AOC review, namely SSR"
>>
>> Stress test 17 was about recommendations that are ignored by the
>> board. One example we have used for some time is on the issue of
>> Name Collisions and certs where a fairly large outcry on the part
>> of the community was required to spur action a year ago. Another
>> example is dotless domains where there was very specific advice
>> from SSAC as well as consensus concern and the board was slow to
>> respond. This stress test relies upon the community’s ability to
>> "force ICANN to respond to recommendations from advisory
>> committees such as SSAC."
>>
>> There is a similar concern with stress tests 3,4, 20, and 22,
>> since they rely upn community ability to “force ICANN to
>> implement a consensus policy or recommendation of an AoC review”
>>
>> Avri brought up recommendation 9 of the ATRT with respect to
>> advice which dictates the board respond to advice in a timely manner:
>>
>> 9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the
>> following language to mandate Board Response to Advisory
>> Committee Formal Advice:
>>
>> /The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice
>> from all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and
>> the rationale for doing so./
>>
>> The question then arose whether a board "response" would be
>> sufficient to trigger the other review mechanisms currently under
>> consideration by WP2 so it was resolved to discuss that with
>> Becky and her team. Perhaps it would be enough to dictate that
>> the trigger mechanism for a review is a decision or response from
>> the board. If not, we might need revisit a specific community
>> power to induce the board to vote on a recommendation so that the
>> vote can act as a trigger for further review if necessary.
>>
>> I would really like to see if we could get these two changes into
>> our draft before it goes to public comment. Thank you.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jonathan Zuck
>>
>> /President/
>>
>> 202-331-2130 X 101 |jzuck at actonline.org
>> <mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>| Skype: jvzuck
>>
>> ACT | The App Association
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/actonline>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://actonline.org/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150409/eebb7d51/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP1
mailing list