[CCWG-ACCT] Contingencies and Board Risk Committee

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Dear Mathieu, co-chairs, colleagues,

I'm pleased to see the relevance, applicability, and severity mentioned 
by the co-chairs, as well as the subsequent mention of remedies, if any, 
and their robustness and the mechanisms available or necessary to 
address those contingencies meeting some minimum of relevance, 
applicability and severity.

In my reading of the input from the Board Risk Committee (BRC) I see 
than much of the contributed contingencies meeting what I'd personally 
thought met some minimum of relevance, applicability and severity were 
present.

I suggest that those items from the BRC's "Enterprise-Wide Risks" be 
eliminated or deferred which begin with or contain the phrase "possible 
perception", as perceptions do not, in general, give rise to a concrete 
case for which an accountability question could be answered. There are 
similar subjective ephemeral "risks" such as "lack of improving trust in 
..." or "failure to effectively facilitate ...", "inconsistent 
communication". Again, it is difficult to know how each of these could 
be converted into a meaningful contingency.

With a shortened initial set of relevant, applicable and severe 
contingencies to work from the work of the participants of the 
re-purposed and re-coordinatored/re-rapporteured WS4 could be more 
useful to the Working Group in the large than it has been up until now.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

On 1/27/15 12:32 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In anticipation of our call, I want to share two items of relevance 
> for the contingency discussion.
>
> 1) Questions for "repurposed" WA4
>
> In Frankfurt we agreed to further investigate on the contingency list 
> by providing answers to several questions on each contingency. There 
> was discussion about the phrasing of the questions. Below is a 
> proposal attempting to merge the Charter deliverable questions with 
> our discussion :
>
>   * How relevant is the threat to the transition of the IANA
>     stewardship ? ie how does the transition affect the likelihood of
>     the threat, or the severeness of the consequences ?
>   * Are there existing remedies in place ? Are these remedies robust ?
>   * Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending
>     existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones
>     necessary ?
>
> 2) Input from the Board Risk Committee
>
> You may remember we had requested communication from the Board Risk 
> Committee regarding the list of contingencies that they consider in 
> the course of their mission, which includes overseeing Icann's risk 
> management framework.
>
> Thanks to Bruce Tonkin, our Board Liaison, as well as the members of 
> this Committee, we have now received communication of this list. I 
> have attached the document.
>
> Our group should now be able to check whether the list contains 
> contingencies we should add.
>
> Looking forward to discussing this on our upcoming call.
>
> Best regards,
> Mathieu Weill
>
> -- 
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150127/5e420332/attachment.html>