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 > > > > > > >