Steve DelBianco described how he saw stress-tests during the session "Enhancing ICANN Accountability" Thursday, 16 October. <http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-enhancing-accountability> (transcript still to be provided). I captured the scribe feed (subject to the usual caveats that this is raw etc), with apologies for all CAPs!
Adam
>>STEVE DelBIANCO: THANKS, MATTHEW. NEXT SLIDE, HILLARY.
LET ME JUST PROPOSE A DEFINITION THAT I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH. A STRESS TEST IS A PLAUSIBLE AND CHALLENGING SCENARIO THAT HELPS US DESIGN AND TEST A NEW MECHANISM OR A PROCESS. SO IT IS PLAUSIBLE BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOT TO BE PROBABLY. SO THE LIKELIHOOD IS OF LESS CONCERN AND WHETHER IT IS AN INTERESTING SCENARIO THAT REALLY HELPS US TO TEST WHETHER OUR MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES WILL STAND UP.
THIS IDEA CAME TO US AT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY MEETING IN SINGAPORE BECAUSE A LOT OF US WERE FORMER PROGRAMMERS AND DREW ON OUR EXPERIENCE OF USING EXTREME USE CASES TO REALLY TEST WHETHER A PIECE OF SOFTWARE OR PROCESS WE WERE DESIGNING WOULD STAND UP TO USERS WHO DON'T BEHAVE IN THE USUAL WAY BECAUSE USERS TEND TO DO THAT. WHY STRESS TESTS? WHY WOULD IT MAKE SENSE IN THIS CONTEXT? I HAVE THREE BULLETS, THE FIRST TWO ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THAN.
A STRESS TEST LET'S US BE CREATIVE ABOUT A FUTURE SCENARIO. INSTEAD OF BEING DEFENSIVE ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST, IF YOU LOOK AT PAST PROBLEMS AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, WE GET INTO A BLAME GET. WE GET WRAPPED AROUND THE AXLE ON WHAT HAPPENED INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE WE CAN RESPOND IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN.
A SECOND IMPORTANT BENEFIT OF STRESS TESTS IS IT CAN GIVE CRITICS OF TRANSITION A VERY PRODUCTIVE WAY OF EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSITION SO THEY CAN EXPRESS IN TERMS OF STRESS TEST: CAN WE HANDLE THIS SITUATION? WHAT HAPPENS IF? THAT ALLOWS US TO DEVELOP RESPONSES. THOSE OF YOU THAT WATCHED THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARING HIGHLIGHT RECALL THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE SEES THIS AS PRODUCTIVE IDEA. IF WE DO IT RIGHT, IT WILL HELP US FORM AN ICANN FOR THE FUTURE AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE PAST.
NEXT SLIDE.
HERE ARE TEN STRESS TESTS THAT NETCHOICE PRESENTED TO CONGRESS EARLIER THIS YEAR AND THAT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY POLISHED AND IMPROVED IN THE COMMENTS WE PRESENTED IN JUNE. THE ACTUAL STRESS TESTS I HAVE PUT UP ON THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY WEB SITE, BIZ.CONST.ORG/STRESSTESTS. MATTHEW DIDN'T GIVE ME NEARLY ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THEM ALL SO I WILL FOCUS ON TWO. THE LIGHT BLUE ONES ARE THOSE THAT INVOLVE IANA DIRECTLY. THE REST INVOLVE ALL OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
SO NUMBER ONE. LET'S FOCUS ON NUMBER ONE, LET'S SAY ICANN UNILATERALLY CANCELS THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS WHICH IT MAY DO SO WITH 120 DAYS' NOTICE. NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. PRESENTLY THE DISCIPLINE THAT'S PROPOSED BY ICANN NEEDING TO WIN THE IANA CONTRACT EVERY THREE YEARS IS OBVIOUSLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FACT THAT ICANN WOULD NEVER CANCEL THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. ONCE IANA IS GONE, A FUTURE ICANN MANAGEMENT, A FUTURE ICANN BOARD MIGHT HANDLE THE AFFIRMATION FOR WHATEVER REASON. AVRI DESCRIBED THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS AND THE ATRT REVIEWS THAT SHE'S DONE. THOSE ARE THERE BECAUSE OF THE AFFIRMATION. AND IF AFFIRMATION REVIEWS ARE TO REMAIN A PART OF THE ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO CONTINUE THEM. SOME HAVE SUGGESTED PERHAPS YOU TAKE THE DATE OUT OF THE AFFIRMATION REVIEWS, BEEN THIS IS STILL A BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ICANN AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE HEARD OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT IT BECOME A WEB OF AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS AND VIRTUALLY EVERY GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATION COULD SIGN ON. THAT'S GOING TO BE COMPLEX. WHAT THE B.C. PROPOSED IN JUNE IS THAT WE MOVE THE AFFIRMATION OBLIGATIONS INTO THE BYLAWS, THINGS LIKE THE REVIEWS. MAKE SENSE?
LET ME GO TO ANOTHER ONE. NUMBER 10, LET'S SAY A GOVERNMENT TELECOM MINISTER IS INSTRUCTING ICANN TO REDELEGATE OR TRANSFER A COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAIN AND TAKING IT AWAY FROM PERHAPS A PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITY THAT WAS RUNNING IT WITH THE GOVERNMENT ABELIASING AND MOVING IT SOMEPLACE ELSE. SUPPOSE THERE WERE FOCAL AND NEARLY UNIVERSAL OBJECTIONS FROM THE REGISTRANT AND USER COMMUNITY IN THAT PARTICULAR COUNTRY. FACED WITH THAT REDELEGATION REQUEST, WHAT RESPONSE OPTIONS WOULD ICANN AND THE IANA FUNCTIONS AUTHORITY HAVE? WHAT MEASURES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ENTITY THAT HAS TO HANDLE THAT? NOW, THAT'S ONE THAT THE NAMING FUNCTIONS GROUP OF THE IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION COORDINATION GROUP IS DEALING WITH.
SO I DID HAVE IT IN HERE AS ONE THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT FURTHER ON. SO SCENARIO PLANNING, IT REALLY IS JUST A TOOL. THERE IS NO INSINUATION IN DOING SCENARIOS THAT THE CURRENT BOARD OR THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT WOULD ACT BADLY. AND THERE IS NO PREDICTION THAT THESE BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
THERE IS NO NEED TO STRESS OUT. IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T STRESS OVER STRESS TESTS. LET'S JUST THINK OF SOME GOOD ONES AND USE THEM AS A TOOL IN THE YEAR AHEAD. THANK YOU.
end
On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We did not get very far into what these would be. I think it will be a topic for our next meeting on Thrusday. One of the notions (from the notes of these meeting)
>> Stress test - proposals that demonstrate on paper how they would resist
>> 'stress' (capture, financial crisis) - incl. list of nightmare scenarios.
>> What are the stresses that were tested and how the various mechanisms enable
>> ICANN survive these 'stresses'.
>>
>
> A question, are these something that the charter DT should develop or would that be a task for the WG? another question we have, do these need to be run before the transition of just defined before the transition. I tend to think run, but it is a question that came up.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 29-Oct-14 20:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> thanks for sharing this update. skimming the draft, I saw that "stress
>> test" are included in deliverables . did the draft team agree on defining
>> what is a stress test? the term is becoming a mantra but I am not sure if
>> everybody has the same understanding. I would think that a stress test is
>> aimed check the limit of the organization but regarding the survival (or
>> recovery) I would think that is resiliency criteria which is quite
>> different.
>> I also see that different solutions will be gathered from existing public
>> comments, any expectation that some best practices or mechanisms to be
>> inspired from other organizations or experiences?
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-10-28 15:12 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> :
>>
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> not complete but getting there.
>>> please review the charter and comment.
>>>
>>> especially interested in comments on deliverables.
>>> but on anything.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Accountability-dt] For your
>>> review - notes & action items and updated version of charter Date: Mon,
>>> 27 Oct 2014 20:29:08 +0000 From: Marika Konings
>>>
>>> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To:
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Please find below the notes and action items from todayıs meeting as well as
>>> attached the latest version of the charter which incorporates the changes
>>> discussed during todayıs meeting.
>>>
>>> As a reminder, the action items are as follows:
>>> * Mathieu to draft language to update problem statement - need to close gap
>>> in accountability (trust of stakeholders in current accountability
>>> mechanisms - not deemed sufficient, part of which needs to be addressed
>>> prior to transition, part of which can be done after. Expand in goals
>>> section what the CWG is expected to achieve. Following that, Mathieu will
>>> review other parts of the document to make sure these align (including work
>>> stream 1 and 2 descriptions)
>>> * Staff to collate Larry Stricklyn's & Fadi's statements/comments from
>>> recent speeches related to this effort
>>> * DT members to review issues collated in public comment period and phrase
>>> those into questions that can be included for each work stream - Keith
>>> volunteered to work with RySG to develop a first list of questions for DT
>>> review. Matthew volunteered to assist with this as well.
>>> * Avri to review deliverables section and suggest additional edits based on
>>> comments received, if needed
>>> * Update draft language in working relationship with CCWG and ICG to reflect
>>> comments received (done)
>>> * Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 October at 13.00 UTC
>>> Please use the attached version for any further edits / comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>> Notes and Action Items DT meeting of 27 October
>>>
>>> Reminder of target date for delivery of charter: 3 November 2014
>>>
>>> Recap of changes made to Charter since last meeting:
>>> * Latest version includes most up to date changes (including Matthew Keith,
>>> and David today)
>>> * Edits to fix some left over references to ICG where no longer appropriate
>>> as well as updates to reflect that more than one proposal may be submitted
>>> by the ICG as the two work streams are likely to be completed along
>>> different timelines
>>> * SOI clarification
>>> * Clarification about ATRT role in concensus calls
>>> Review of charter:
>>> * Include definition of the term "accountability" in the Charter (from
>>> NETmundial Statement): "Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and
>>> balances as well asfor review and redress should exist."
>>> Question concerning scope:
>>> * What is demarcation between WS1 and WS2?
>>> * Focus on pre-transition vs. post-transition accountability as opposed to
>>> IANA vs. non-IANA?
>>> * The reference to IANA Functions accountability is being dealt with by the
>>> other CCWG. This group should be focused on accountability reforms made
>>> necessary by NTIA's disengagement from its legacy role.
>>> * ICANN's accountability to the community as a whole may need to be
>>> reflected in the charter - is there a conflict between currently proposed
>>> definitions of work streams & scope?
>>> * NTIA oversight created accountability across ICANN - how to recreate that
>>> general accountability mechanism prior to any transition.
>>> * Everything should be on the table for consideration - up to the CCWG to
>>> determine what should be done before transition and what can wait until
>>> after.
>>> * Recommendations coming out of work stream 1 are expected to provide a path
>>> for work going on in work stream 2. Process for addressing anything coming
>>> up in work stream 2 is one of the objectives of work stream 1.
>>> * Transition of role of US Government is at the heart of the work of the
>>> CCWG and also dictates timeline / sense of urgency - if scope is too wide it
>>> risks the effort to get lost
>>> * See challenges identified by Larry Strickling in his speech
>>> * Stress test one of the key deliverables of CCWG
>>> DT Agreements;
>>> * Delineation between work stream 1 and 2 should be pre and post transition
>>> * Charter should not limit accountability mechanisms or functions affected
>>> as part of the CCWG work
>>> Deliverables, timeframes & reporting
>>> * Proposed edits from Avri (see document circulated)
>>> * Two additions proposed: 1) when solutions are proposed, deliverables need
>>> to include stress test, scenarios to demonstrate that the solutions are
>>> resistent to capture / stress; 2) after assessing current situation,
>>> priorities need to be identified - what is required before transition and
>>> what can wait until after (big impact vs. limited impact) (Avri tried to
>>> capture these as part of her edits which will be shared with the DT shortly)
>>> * Do stress tests need to be defined or conducted prior to transition? At
>>> least for stream 1, this should be a requirement to be conducted in theory.
>>> For work stream 2, may not be required, or at least not in the short run.
>>> * Stress test - proposals that demonstrate on paper how they would resist
>>> 'stress' (capture, financial crisis) - incl. list of nightmare scenarios.
>>> What are the stresses that were tested and how the various mechanisms enable
>>> ICANN survive these 'stresses'.
>>> Membership
>>> * Include as a for example, the link to criteria identified for the
>>> community working group (seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-
>>> 22-en#12)
>>> Working relationship with ICG / IANA Stewardship CWG
>>> * Consider including reference to regular meetings between chairs
>>> * Clarify the role of the board (not related to co-ordination, but to final
>>> approval of proposals) - include link to board resolution
>>> * Review this section and consider clarifying
>>> * Main focus should be on IANA Stewardship Transition CWG as ICG just has a
>>> co-ordinating role
>>> Expert Advisors
>>> * Section captures comments provided by Mathieu
>>> Action item:
>>> * Mathieu to draft language to update problem statement - need to close gap
>>> in accountability (trust of stakeholders in current accountability
>>> mechanisms - not deemed sufficient, part of which needs to be addressed
>>> prior to transition, part of which can be done after. Expand in goals
>>> section what the CWG is expected to achieve. Following that, Mathieu will
>>> review other parts of the document to make sure these align (including work
>>> stream 1 and 2 descriptions)
>>> * Staff to collate Larry Stricklyn's & Fadi's statements/comments from
>>> recent speeches related to this effort
>>> * DT members to review issues collated in public comment period and phrase
>>> those into questions that can be included for each work stream - Keith
>>> volunteered to work with RySG to develop a first list of questions for DT
>>> review. Matthew volunteered to assist with this as well.
>>> * Avri to review deliverables section and suggest additional edits based on
>>> comments received, if needed
>>> * Update draft language in working relationship with CCWG and ICG to reflect
>>> comments received
>>> * Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 October at 13.00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
|
