[WP2] Stress Test analysis on IRP

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

One of the key assumptions in this analysis is that the Board can refuse
the seating of an IRP or can refuse to be subject to being bound by the
IRP.  Is this the case?  If so, can that be fixed/changed?

Also another issue came up today of the IRP's power over the ACSO
themselves.  Today the ACSO are subject to the Board, and thus
indirectly to an IRP (ref. the question above).  I have been
understanding that if we have a membership model, the ACSO will be
'sovereign' entities no longer subject to the Board in the same manner
as they are now.  I also see nothing that makes them subject to any
method of redress by accountability mechanism.  Is my understanding
correct?  And if I am correct, how can we show the accountability of
SOAC, and can we show any formal method of appeal to the decisions and
practices, for example transparency, of these bodies?  It seems to me
that given the stress test posed by the NTIA we need to be able to so. 
Is that correct?

thanks

avri


On 08-Jul-15 10:00, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Dear Becky, everyone,
>
> In today's Stress Test Working Party we considered an analysis written
> on Stress Test 23. Stress test 23 says
>
> "ICANN uses RAA or other agreements to arrange that its counter-parties
> impose requirements on third parties, allegedly outside scope of ICANN
> mission. Affected third parties, not being contracted to ICANN, have
> little or no effective recourse against ICANN; contracted parties, not
> being implicated by the requirements themselves, do not avail themselves
> of mechanisms allowing them to challenge ICANN’s decision. Consequence:
> ICANN seen as a monopoly leveraging power in one market (domain names)
> into adjacent markets."
>
> The paper analyses how the CCWG proposal addresses this problem, and the
> routes that are followed by the accountability mechanisms we have
> created, to see whether there are any gaps or potential for failure in
> the accountability process we have designed.
>
> The Stress Test Working Party was of the view that although the analysis
> had been written to a specific scenario created to test Stress Test 23,
> since the accountability process is similar for other scenarios, this
> analysis may have much broader applicability than just the narrow
> scenario described.
>
> The Stress Test Working Party noted that the measures in the proposal
> addressed to this issue (Mission, IRP) lie significantly within the
> purview of WP2, and asked me to forward this paper to you with the
> recommendation that WP2 consider the paper and the issues to which it
> draws attention.
>
> The analysis paper is attached for your convenience, and now has a
> permanent location on the CCWG wiki:
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20Analysis%20Test%2023%20rev%202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2
>
>
> If you would like to discuss this on tonight's call, I will be happy to
> walk you through it.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Malcolm.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus