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 today¹s meeting as well as
> attached the latest version of the charter which incorporates the changes
> discussed during today¹s 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>