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 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >>