[WP1] board inaction stress tests

Fri Apr 10 06:06:40 UTC 2015

+1 - no downside to including it, where would it fit in our comment report
though?

J

On Friday, 10 April 2015, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

>  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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wp1-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','WP1 at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing listWP1 at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','WP1 at icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150410/5fc87938/attachment-0001.html>