[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for STRESS TESTS #9 - 8 July

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability STRESS TESTS Meeting #9 - 8 July
will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782461

 

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format

ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests 

ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point.

ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. 

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

 

We will be discussing the update to stress testing and the document Malcolm Hutty prepared.

Update to stress test . 

Role of courts: Work to be done: convert these two stress tests into our table format. To apply our
tests we have to understand what degree 
of enforceability the final reference model has.  And when that is know we will revisit the tests
under the conditions of the new model.

ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format

Corruption: no additional work needed.

Capture by insiders: Will leave this as it is. WP3 may address this. 

Enforcement of contract provisions that exceed limited mission of ICANN:  what investigate and
respond to mean remains to be determined. 

ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests 

Member/Designator Representatives fail to honor voting instructions from their AC/SO: do we still
need to keep this stress test? Suggestion to add a 
fourth paragraph to suggest that in addition to informing community that vote is invalid, there
would be possible step of replacing person who cast the 
vote. We should not tie it to a particular office, we should use term "delegated representative".
Part of continuum in case of misrepresentation. "delegated 
and designated to cast". Avoid Chair, office etc terms. Agreed language: Person designated by AC/SO
to communicate the AC/SO vote 

Revocation and resassignments of ccTLD manager - Brought up as part of public comment. Suggestion to
have ccNSO develop policy pursuant to FoI. 

Response to litigation - This does not insulate ICANN from jurisdictional reach of governements.

NTIA statement - 4 stress tests were extracted from letter. Are they covered by existing stress
tests? 

ST-NTIA 1 - It means everyone has opportunity to participate. If some do not wish to participate, it
does not affect multistakeholder model. 

Important to articulate that it is opportunity and open ability which should be critical tests for
robustness of model we are running. Once you opt in, you can't 
opt in and out. Designator/member opt-in may only need one. 

Do we want to consider whether that can be altered? 

Should we advocate that invitations to exercise votes are open invitation to participate? 

--> Invitation should be open to all 

ST-NTIA-2  - Do we need to ask for processes on AC/SOs to make sure the communities are aware of
voting? We can add that need 
transparency rules as part of voting process. Have we built requirements into our community
empowerment mechanism? Stress Test 
could be community choosing to ignore advice in its deliberations and voting. 

ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point.

IRP is set up for making decisions that are binding on Board and not binding on SO/ACs. Are we now
saying IRP is viable mechanism for 
appealing against SO/AC issues? Or are we saying Board has ability to force on SO/AC? 

Could ATRT review these cases and criteria? 

Consider ombudsman. 

ST-NTIA-3 - It is our objective to employ open, bottom-up processes. If they were specific decisions
acting to exclude new 
participants, this commitment (para 89) would give basis for challenge. We should document this
stress test.

ST-NTIA 4 -  None of SO/ACs have operational role although GNSO creeps into it through its
implementation review teams. Not 
sure if needs to be done. We have distinguish between models in terms of responses. 

Stress Test Analysis for test 23

Malcolm Hutty walked the WP through
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20Analysis%20Test%2023%20re
v%202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2>
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 

Most stress tests suggest IRP as way to challenge and assume that they are enforceable. 

It is universally accepted that IRP will be binding arbitration. It does not necessarily relate to
scenario in stress test 23. 

Does ICANN volunteer submit to arbitration? We need to analyze how ICANN can be held accountable for
that decision. 

We will need to come back to this topic on our next call. This document will also need to be brought
to larger CCWG group and suggest that 
it be flagged as a document on reading list. We have more to do on document dated 20 June. 

ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. 

- Suggestion that the document depends upon 2 assumptions that should be tested with Counsel:  Can
ICANN decline to accept binding IRP?  and 
2) can anyone enforce a binding IRP decision in courts that recognize binding arbitration?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150708/be9776ed/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150708/be9776ed/smime.p7s>