Page History

Transcript

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #3 8 April.doc

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #3 8 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1l4fyxk3t4/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-stress-test-08apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome Attendance and any Apologies

2. Introductory remarks (CLO)

3. Review of ST-WP activity since Istanbul F2F Meeting (Steve)

4. Note of ST#18 discussion at next weeks CCWG Conference call (CLO/Steve)

5. Review and discussion of ST's identified as 'required for CWG and use in their for Public Comments documentation/reporting (CLO / Steve) the following 
text is extracted from the current draft v3.0 of CWG Transition Plan Documentation=> "IV.C Workability of any new technical or operational methods

This section should describe what your community views as the implications of the changes it proposed in Section III.

• Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they 
  compare to established arrangements.

Testing and Evaluation of New Technical or Operational Methods Proposed:

Review of relevant CCWG Stress Tests 

Failure to Meet Operational Expectations

1. Change authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole.

2. Delegation authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole.

11. Compromise of credentials.

17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups.

21. A government official demands ICANN rescind responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent ccTLD Manager.

Legal/Legislative Action

19. ICANN attempts to re-delegate a

gTLD because the registry operator is determined to be in breach of its contract,

 but the registry operator challenges the action and obtains an injunction from a national court.

20. A court order is issued to block ICANN’s delegation of a new TLD, because of complaint by existing TLD operators or other aggrieved parties.

Failure of Accountability to External Stakeholders

 25. ICANN delegates or subcontracts its obligations under a future IANA agreement to a third party. Would also include ICANN merging

 with or allowing itself to be acquired by another organization.

6.  AOB  (CLO)

7. Any AI's reviewed and next meeting plan (CLO)

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.

1. Beran Gillan is on audio line

2. Further editing of stress test 18 since Istanbul

3.  There are many anticipated mechanisms which we supposed would be part of the comment period e.g. mechanism of 
community veto - that was present in 8 of our stress tests. Community veto, however,  is not being developed as part of WS1. May need to strikethrough some mechanisms. 

Eberhard has sent language for ST 21. 

Edward provided new ST (p.15) to be discussed

Progress on ST 18. WP1 fully endorsed suggestion to proceed with change to Bylaw. 

Notion of how do we get Board to initiate action in proactive way - mechanism needed to force action.  

CWG identified set of stress tests as critical. 

3&4 still up for discussion

Expectation that we will apply stress test to what will be published for public comment. 

ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions published for public comment.

Community Veto 

Stress test 3 litigation arising from existing public policy & stress test 4 new regulations or legislation.

Proposal to leave strikethrough and alert colleagues as a warning. If no community veto, we would take it out. Removing community veto would not be fatal. 

--> Alternatives: reconsideration or IRP - these two mechanisms are close but not identical to community veto. Parameters are being set for reconsideration 
request (Cf Robin Gross' template) 

--> Community veto is not redundant

ACTION ITEM: Leave strikethrough on community veto and alert CCWG.

Forcing ICANN's Board to implement a recommendation

ST 17 ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other SG. 

ATRT2 recommendation compels Board to respond to advice from AC. 

Is a response enough to trigger a review mechanism or do we need Board to make resolution/take a vote in order to have something to review? 

LEGAL QUESTION: can we ensure there is a response which relates to inaction of Board, not just responses that are triggered by action of Board?

ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam 

If there is a response to issue, it is a far more high consequence such as proposal to spill whole Board. Spilling Board could be result of inaction. 

If inaction from Board, is it enough to trigger reconsideration or IRP? Where is the linkage?

ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. 

It would depend on nature of response/decision. We must have clarity about triggers. 

ST11 Compromise of credentials 

WP1 and WP2 to ensure reconsideration or IRP can be triggered on inaction of Board.

ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG

ST 26 suggested by Edward Morris was added.

4. ST 18 will be discussed on next CCWG call. 

5.  Following stress tests have been identified in context of CWG work:

Failure to Meet Operational Expectations

1. Change authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole.

2. Delegation authority for the Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole.

11. Compromise of credentials.

17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups.

21. A government official demands ICANN rescind responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent ccTLD Manager.

High priority should be given to this.

On 13-14 April the CWG is having intensive work day

Expecting long form document

The CWG would have to build text around it to show how this would be applicable and how it is mapped. 

Suggestion to have Cheryl & Avri circulate CWG accountability mechanisms as soon as high confidence they are close to final stage

ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call

ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min

ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests 

ST 21 TBD

Action Items

• ACTION ITEM: Ask Co-chairs as soon as possible when we would be expected to apply stress tests to conclusions 
  published for public comment.

• ACTION ITEM: Leave strike-through on community veto and alert CCWG.
• ACTION ITEM: Pass on legal questions to legal subteam 
• ACTION ITEM WP2 to look at ATRT rec to ensure that is a sufficient trigger. 
• ACTION ITEM: Steve and Jonathan to write paper and alert WP1/WP2/CCWG
• ACTION ITEM: ST-WP address CWG accountability measures during next call
• ACTION ITEM: Schedule next week's call for 90 min
• ACTION ITEM: Jonathan to send a note to list which identifies Board inaction-related stress tests 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Alice Jansen: (4/8/2015 05:23) Welcome to ST-WP call #3! Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Pär Brumark (Niue GAC): (05:57) Good afternoon all!

  Alice Jansen: (06:00) Hello Pär - thanks for joining!

  Pär Brumark (Niue GAC): (06:00) Thx and Hi Alice!

  Brenda Brewer: (06:01) Beran Gillan on phone line

  Brenda Brewer: (06:01) dial outs complete

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:02) hello :)

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:02) I will, thanks a lot

  Brenda Brewer: (06:02) Izumi apologies

  Keith Drazek: (06:11) +1 Jonathan. Board inaction is still a risk and a gap that needs attention.

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:18) I am afraid I missed the meeting on Sunday..

  Edward Morris: (06:18) Audio just dropped

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:18) Ohh darn :-9  do you need a dial out  Ed?

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:18) However this makes sense to me

  Edward Morris: (06:18) I'm calling back in. Thanks Cheryl.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) Thanks Athina

  Avri Doria: (06:19) albeit new to ST, but are there no otherr mechanisms that would fill that gp.  or is t c-veto the only possible solution?

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (06:19) it is important thar a national redelegation on redelegation in only dealt with in the national appeal system

  Pär Brumark (Niue GAC): (06:20) +1 Finn

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (06:20) first redelegation should have been Decision

  Alice Jansen: (06:23) please mute your line when not speaking - there seems to be background noise

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:26) Thanks for the explanation Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:29) SAC 053 was SSAC's advice against dotless domains

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:32) I guess the question is whether a "response" is enough of a trigger for one of the review mechanisms

  Avri Doria: (06:34) 9. Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the followinglanguage to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice:The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advicefrom all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and therationale for doing so.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:34) doesn't seem like enough of a trigger

  Avri Doria: (06:36) if the butter is sufficinetly frozen a lazer might be useful.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:36) @Avri -- has the Board proposed that change to the bylaws yet?

  Keith Drazek: (06:38) Agree with Jonathan.  Following Avri's comment, it appears that the Board's response and explanation *could* be a trigger, but we'd need to make it more explicit...somehow. If the response shows the Board elected to not accept the advice, perhaps that's where we need to include a new mechanism. Again, as I said above in chat, Board inaction is a risk.

  Avri Doria: (06:43) i do not see atrt2 9.1  as having been included in the bylaws yet

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:43) Noted Avri  we need to note that in the next version of this ST Doc

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:44) and 2 of them are important to CWG so perhaps focus on 11 and 17

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:44) makes totally sense to me

  Alice Jansen: (06:58) yes - that is correct - 13-14 April https://community.icann.org/calendar/previewcalendar.action?subCalendarId=c6f19314-7b51-48f6-b1b9-af9d692ace53

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:08) sure

  Pär Brumark (Niue GAC): (07:11) Thx! ´Bye!

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (07:11) thank you all