Members: Sebastien Bachollet, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Leon Sanchez, Athina Fragkouli, Izumi Okutani, Eberhard Lisse, Roelof Meijer, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, James Bladel, Steve DelBianco, Robin Gross, Thomas Rickert, Julia Wolman, Alice Munyua, Bruce Tonkin, Samantha Eisner

Participants:  Avri Doria, Edward Morris, Rudolph Daniel, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Kavouss Arasteh, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Wolf Ludwig, Jonathan Zuck, Martin Boyle, Vrikson Ivan Acosta-Velasquez, Eric Brunner-Williams, Olivier Muron, Finn Petersen, David McAuley, Keith Drazek, Isaque Joaquim,

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:  Olga Cavalli

**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Proposed Agenda:  

1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI 

2. CWG update and high level principles 

3. WS1/WS2 recap

4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion 

5. Contingencies : finalize list 

6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting 

7. AOB 

8. Closing remarks 


1. Welcome & Roll Call & SOI

  • On the call:  Alice Munyua, Julia Wolman
  • No updates to Statement of Interest
  • Six advisors have been appointed by the PEG.  A call between the co-chairs and advisors to get the advisors on-board is scheduled later this week.  One advisor, Jan Scholte, will join the F2F in Frankfurt.  A search for an international legal expert is ongoing.
  • Independent legal advice on California law - discussion with ICANN staff ongoing, the action is in progress
  • Apologies from Olga Cavalli


2. CWG update and high level principles

  • CCWG high level principles and CWG intense work weekend.  4 CWG calls over the weekend 10-11 January
  • Updates from CWG members
  • Avri Doria:  CWG reviewed the surveys of members and participants and others to gauge impressions on aspects of the public comments received for all customer standing committee (CSC), MS review team (MRT), the independent appeals panel (IAP) and Contract Co and alternate proposals.
  • Discussion of various points of agreement and disagreement.
  • On CSC, MRT and IAP, consensus not agreed but some agreement on how they may be set up. On Contract Co, strong lack of consensus, with one notion of alternate proposals being worked on.
  • A list of the various accountability issues that came up in the CWG discussion is being drawn up.  Hopefully in time for CCWG Frankfurt F2F.  And how the accountability requirements may differ for the different proposals.
  • Do not expect consensus by January 15.
  • Would have been better if CCWG Accountability were further along.  Some catch-up required and alignment of work of the two groups.
  • Greg Shatan:  new sub-group has been formed to look at an "internal to iCANN" solution that does not involve a Contract Co.  And the required accountability measures that an internal solution would necessitate.Cheryl Langdon-Orr:  suggestion to add possible agenda item for Frankfurt to speak to ongoing work of CWG and new working group RFP3B.

3. WS1/WS2 recap

  • WS1, mainly about the community prevailing over ICANN
  • What do we mean by consensus?  What is the "community"?  Who would the community itself be accountable to?  (Russian dolls or balance based on separation of powers)
  • Balance of different types of powers (judicial, legal, executive). 
  • What happens if some ICANN accountability mechanisms disappear with the transition. 
  • Affect of CWG discussions.
  • Inventory of WS1 and WS2 items (WA2) is being reformulated.
  • Question for the group: what would we consider "committed to", in what form the commitment might take. Will require further work.


Action:  Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. 

Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. 

Action:  Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work


4. Definitions / scoping document : Public Interest discussion

  • Who are the stakeholders in directly affected, indirectly affected, and parties affecting ICANN?
  • The purpose of ICANN's accountability: (1) compliance purposes, (2) acceptable to achieved certain level of performance.  In addition (3) that ICANN should be accountable to comply with relevant legislation. (4) ICANN accountable to ensure its decisions are in the interest of all stakeholders.
  • Preferred mapping of stakeholder and whether to use NETmundial? 
  • The NETmundial definition is not felt as appropriate for CCWG work.  Need to clarify wording in the document.  Appropriate categorization of indirectly affected parties and others, particularly the impact on ccTLDs.


Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list.

Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. 


5. Contingencies : finalize list

  • Discussion in WA4.  Stress tests and whether certain items should be taken off the list if the contingency was felt very unlikely to occur. The Charter does not suggest probability of a contingency - Should we take into account probability of a contingency when including or not in the list?
  • Importance to understand the likelihood opt something happening, for binary issues or other.   Some scenarios seem to re-state the same problem set, e.g around financial issues. Suggestion to discuss what success conditions might look like.
  • The list is not finite and new items can be added via sub-group WA4.  With discussion in Frankfurt.


6. Draft agenda for Frankfurt meeting

  • Progress on scope
  • Progress on WS1 and WS2
  • Conclude the work on the inventory of current ICANN accountability mechanisms


Action: Include time for an update from CWG

Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies


  • Volunteers to provide what they think as the ideal outcomes, 2/3minutes.  4 or 5 "pitch visions" of that the post transition accountability might look like. 


Action:  Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like.

Action:  ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process.


7. AOB

  • Issue of independent legal advice. Ongoing discussion, and the independent expert advisors may also be able to advise.  Goal to provide legal advice in Frankfurt.


8. Closing remarks

  • Please provide feedback on the documents to be discussed in Frankfurt.  Comment or Edits.


Action Items

Action:  Steve DelBianco within WA2 to capture formulation for the definition. 

Action: Staff to re-cap who the community is accountable to. 

Action:  Frankfurt for some definition for the basis of further work

Action: Colleagues to provide concrete re-wording suggestions on this section before Frankfurt to the list.

Action: Provide any suggestions about "purpose" To come to conclusion in Frankfurt. 

Action: Include time for an update from CWG

Action: Expand time allowed for discussion on contingencies

Action:  Call for volunteers to do present ideas on what a post transition accountability framework might look like.

Action:  ICG liaisons will clarify if CCWG Accountability is expected to submit proposals on accountability to the ICG process.


Transcript CCWG ACCT #6 13 Jan.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #6 13 Jan.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


Documents Presented

CWGChairs¹ Statement 11Jan.pdf

WA2_ 13Jan.pdf

20140111 CCWG Accountability - strawman -wip.pdf

20150108 CCWG Accountability - Scenarios -WS4coord-MWE-SDB2.pdf

Agenda for F2F Meeting (18-20 January).pdf


Chat Transcript

>  Alice Jansen:Welcome to the CCWG-Accountability Call # 6 - Please

>note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN

>Expected Standards of Behavior:


>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi all

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Cheryl - thanks for joining!

>  Bart Boswinkel:Hello all

>  Chris Disspain:Greetings

>  Keith Drazek:Hello all.....

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Kieth

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Chris

>  Chris Disspain:should I be hearng something through adobe?

>  Chris Disspain:ah...just did

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Hello all

>  Jonathan Zuck:did anyone hear me?

>  Leon Sanchez:Hello everyone

>  Keith Drazek:No Jonathan

>  Keith Drazek:Are you on Adobe on phone?

>  Leon Sanchez:My apologies for not being able to speak but I'm in a

>flight somewhere in between Dallas and Mexico City

>  Rudi Daniel:Hi  a l l.

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Leon, that'll cost you :-)-O

>  Leon Sanchez:Don't know how long I will have connectivity as I will

>lose it as soon as I exit US airspace

>  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue):Good Morning all!

>  Leon Sanchez:@Eberhard yes but it's worth it  :D

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:God to hsave yoiu all be it 'somewhat muted' Leon

>  Bruce Tonkin:Good afternoon

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hi Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:Hello Cheryl.

>  Brenda Brewer:Olga Cavalli sends apologies

>  Leon Sanchez:Thanks @Cheryl :-)

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: do wish you could correct typos in AC chat of

>course ;-)

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:that's American continentS

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:I stand corrected ;-)

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):we need to be sure the legal advice reports

>to this group and is truly independent.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Agreed  @Robin

>  Leon Sanchez:I am listening @Mathieu :-)

>  Leon Sanchez:Thanks!

>  Keith Drazek:I would like to suggest that the CCWG could and should

>secure our own legal expert and not rely on ICANN staff to provide one

>for us. As Robin said, it really should be someone completely

>independent.  We can discuss further in Frankfurt if there's no time


>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Keith : we are engaging with staff to

>see HOW to get that independent advice. This point is well taken

>  Keith Drazek:I think we need to discuss possible independent funding

>to secure such an expert. Perhaps a "passing of the hat" among CCWG members.

> Thanks Mathieu.

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Keith -

>let's get back to that point during AOB, please!

>  Alan Greenberg:Lost Avri?

>  Alan Greenberg:Hopefully will start tomorrow.

>  arasteh:pls advise to dial arrasteh pls advise to dial me up arrasteh

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh: Brenda is trying

>  Keith Drazek:@Thomas: I see above that Kavouss is requesting a

>dial-out.  Also, FYI, I did not participate in the CWG Transition

>session last weekend.

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, please see private chat regarding dialout

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Keith -

>this is being taken care of. Sorry re the weekend. My bad.

>  Keith Drazek:No problem!

>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I did but nit now @Alice

>  arasteh 2:GRACE

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I can page by page and scroll

>but the full page is not showing on screen and can not scroll within



>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss, please see private chat

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:THat makes sense, Keith

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Cheryl - I will look into it - in the meantime -

>document is available here -


>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Scrolling seems to work for me.

>  Samantha Eisner:+1 to Keith

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Keith

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavousse, we are calling you at the number you

>provided...they tell us there is no room 835

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I had a green check up to +1 to

>Kieth earlier  but nte it here

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks Mathieu. I think the two sentences are


>  Keith Drazek:+1 Thomas. Something is committed to or not committed to.

>No need for the extra word

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):sure  just Committed will do...

>  Bruce Tonkin:I am not aware of any intent to cancel the AOC.

>  Bruce Tonkin:This document constitutes an Affirmation of Commitments

>(Affirmation) by the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") and

>the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a

>not-for-profit corporation. In recognition of the conclusion of the

>Joint Project Agreement and to institutionalize and memorialize the

>technical coordination of the Internet's domain name and addressing

>system (DNS)1, globally by a private sector led organization, the

>parties agree as




>  Bruce Tonkin:The heading of the AoC is not tied to IANA in any way.

>However it may well make sense to include key provisions from the AoC

>into the bylaws to it is a commitment to the  public as a whole rather

>than just to one government.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Bruce:  agree

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks Bruce. I think the concern is that either party

>*could* terminate wtith 120 days notice, so there's a need to formalize

>it for the long term. And yes, agreed, that it could/should be a

>commitment to the public rather than to the USG alone.

>  Alice Jansen:Hi Kavouss, please refer to my text message and Brenda's

>private chats - we cannot reach you at the hotel room number you



>  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Keith and Steve.

>  Keith Drazek:The AoC (or something like it) need to evolve in a

>post-NTIA world.

>  Samantha Eisner:A question of clarification to Steve - Isn't what

>we're putting into WS1 a discussion as to whether it is appropriate for

>the commitements within the AoC to be incorporated into the Bylaws if

>it is agreed that is the best way to address accountability issues, and

>not that WS1 must have as an outcome that the AoC is incorporated into

>the Bylaws?

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Sam -- I don't see it that way.   If it's

>in WS1 then we need to do it (or have it committed).  It's more than

>just talking about it.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):one could ask why folding AOC into the bylaws needs

>to wait for transtion.

>  James Bladel-GNSO:Not the AoC, but the Review Teams.

>  Bruce Tonkin:SOme of the material in the Aoc relates to various

>reviews.   There is a seciton in the bylaws for reviews so that is an

>example where some of the commitments in the AoC could be incorporated

>into the bylaws.

>  Samantha Eisner:@ Steve, it would be committed if that is the outcome

>of our discussions on WS1, but it might not be the outcome of WS1 if

>there are different solutions identified.  We are in agreement that if

>we agree it is necessary, it would be committed.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Actually Avri - I would hope that many if not all of the

>accountability imroovements recommended by this group shoudl be

>implemented regardless of whether there is a transtion of the NTIA


>  Chris Disspain:Bruce + 1

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1 Bruce

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Bruce

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):gets a +++1 from me

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):the reason why i ask, is that one of the question

>some have is the Board ability to decide to accept the accountabilty

>changes.  doing things that can be done already may be an indicator.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:I made the changes to WS1 and WS2

>definitions. see


>  Bruce Tonkin:Well Avri - generally the board will be seeking communiyt

>input before making any changes - so it amounts to the same thing.   e.g

>The ARTR2 calls for updates to the indepdent review process,

>reconsideration process etc.   The Board agrees.   But do we form another

>group or do we leverage this group.

>  Bruce Tonkin:If jsut go out with new bylaws changes - we would just

>be accused on being top down rather than wiating for this group to recommend.

>  Keith Drazek:true! ;-)

>  Bruce Tonkin:Alst time we used a panel of expert advisors for updates

>from ATRT1 - but there was little communitu engagement in their work

>(preumably becuase most were busy on aspects of new gTLDs at the time).

>  Bruce Tonkin:This time we are using a cross-community working group.

>  Bruce Tonkin:One of challenges is that we haven;t had a chance to

>fully implement some of the ARTR2 work before we are again reviewing

>accountabiloity mechanisms.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):Burce, of course, and of course you would do

>community comment.  But some things that seem to have no objection,

>like the folding in of AOC committments might be less of an issue.  Of

>course things like repsonse to the ATRT recommendations themseves is

>another issue.  but it was just a middle of night thought, and may even

>be out of scope for the group.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i.e what the Board does to fix accountabilty

>pre-track 1 based on previous committments..

>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control

>  David McAuley (Registries):Steve, on new definitions in second para


>WS1 ­ suggest ³would be implemented in a timely manner² ­ Bylaws Art.

>IV has for years required board to establish a standing IRP panel and

>it has yet to occur

>  Sivasubramanian M:The classification "directly affected parties" and

>"indirectly affected parties" does not clearly grade the degree to

>which each party is affected.  "Directly affected parties" are more

>appropriately renamed "stakeholders internal to ICANN" and most of

>"indirectly affected parties are stakeholders who are not direct

>PARTICIPANTS of the ICANN process.   ii 2 & 3 are, viewed in a certain

>way, the most directly affected parties.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@David -- we need to circulate that to

>chairs, who suggested that second paragraph and gave it a week of

>review by the CCWG

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:++1 Siva on that distinction

>  David McAuley (Registries):@Steve - fair enough

>  Sivasubramanian M:ii (1) is the most important class to which ICANN

>would have to be accountable to, leaving aside practical concerns

>related to how a process could be designed to be accountable to 7

>billion users, present and future.

>  Sivasubramanian M:Thansk Steve

>  Sivasubramanian M:We could say that the ICANN is accountable to the

>Internet user, whose best interests are represented by Stakeholder

>representatives, represented within ICANN by Constituency A

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1 specious distinction

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Good point @Steve... the

>palletability  of this needs to be addresed a well

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Siva

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):In discussing stakeholders we need to remeber that

>the Netmundil and WSIS breakdowns are based on top level global

>breakdown.  Whereas the stakeholder within ICANN are the stakeholders

>as viewed by one component of the ecosystem.

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):and while we may need to show how our stakeolder

>breakdonw maps to the top level perspective, they may not need to be

>identical to them.

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Sadly, indirectly affected is roughly

>equivalent to "pawns" and we need to remove that denigrating tone.

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):@Kavouss:

>The ICANN team is trying to dial out to you. Would you kindly only

>raise your hand once you are on audio and can speak? If you can speak

>now, you will certainly get a chance to speak. Thanks!

>  Sivasubramanian M:Same could be said of Registries, whose interests

>could best be served by a stakeholder group such as Registrants Group,

>which under the present ICANN organization could come under the gNSO or

>in a more elaborate structure could be a part of a different

>constituency or Advisory Committee

>  Keith Drazek:I think the terms "directly affected" and "Indirectly

>affected" parties came from the IANA Functions vis-a-vis the

>operational communities and is probably too narrow for overall ICANN

>accountability to the community.

>  Sivasubramanian M:sorry.. same could be said of Registrants...

>  Greg Shatan:How about "first class citizens" and "second class

>citizens"  :-)

>  Sivasubramanian M:that was a correction to the statement immediately

>preceding the correction

>  Sébastien (ALAC):NetMundial is not a good definition for ICANN

>  Greg Shatan:I joke, but it can look like this to the outside observer.

>The "European Framework for Quality Management" is not a foundational

>document for many of us, much less the rest of the world.

>  James Bladel-GNSO:WHile I generally agree that there should not be

>"classes" of affected users, it is worth pointing out that contracted

>parties have signed contracts with ICANN that gives them broad

>abilities to amend/change the terms of those agreements, even over our objections.

>So this should be acknowledged when dsicussing accountability of ICANN


>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Greg : I fully appreciate that. We

>need to take that into account

>  Bruce Tonkin:It may make sense to have speicifc-subgroups of the

>global Itnernet user commuity that relates specifically to Internet identifiers.

>  Netmundial was not looking a any specific aspect to the Internet as

>far as I udnerstand it, whereas ICANN has a narrow defined mission

>(maybe not as narrow as some would like but still narrow in the content

>of the Internet).

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:The GNSO for example- wwas identifying staekhodler

>groups that are mostly directly affected by Internet identifiers.

>  Brenda Brewer:Please mute line if you are not speaking. Thank you.

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):+1 Avri

>  Sivasubramanian M:@ Bruce    The specific subgroups could be of two

>classes..  Users affected by DNS specific policies and programs and

>Users affected by policies and programs peripheral, but related to DNS


>  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):@Mathieu: I am in my car and it is probably

>better that I avoid using the mike. I am unsure if you intend to be

>exhaustive with the lists of directly and indirectly affected parties

>and the processes/decisions they are affected by. But the specific

>manetions for ccTLDs are incomplete (to narrow) in my opinion.  Tree

>examples: 1)if ICANN deceides to sign the root, that decision causes

>pressure on a ccTLD by its stakeholders. 2)The introduction of new

>gTLDs has influence on the local market of many ccTLDs and thus on

>their market position 3) if ICANN agrees to a price change of .com

>domains by Verisign, that change might influence registrars' choices in

>the marketing of TLDs, also ccTLDs

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavouss.  we call the hotel, they do not know of your

>room number.  See private chat please.

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:All the stakeholders are 'Affected parties'.

> Let's leave it at that.  And we can indicate next to each Affected

>Party the means by which they are affected

>  Roelof Meijer (ccNSO):That's fine, Mathieu

>  J:Affected and Inflicted?  ;)

>  David McAuley (Registries):+1 @Steve

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:WA4 current document is at






>  Sivasubramanian M:ICANN needs to be accountable to both the gTLD

>registrants and ccTLD Registrants (among others), equally between ccTLD

>Registrants and gTLD registrants, without discrimination.  But this

>presupposes that ICANN has an almost equal degree of responsibility

>over both gTLD policies and ccTLD policies and programs. That is to

>say, in order for ICANN to treat ccTLDs on par with gTLDs in matters of

>Accountability, ccTLDs have to  offer to come a little more under ICANN


>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:The CCWG Charter says this: Review of

>possible solutions for each Work Stream including stress tests against

>identified contingencies. The CCWG-Accountability should consider the

>following methodology for stress testsanalysis of potential weaknesses

>and risks analysis existing remedies and their robustnessdefinition of

>additional remedies or modification of existing remediesdescription how

>the proposed solutions would mitigate the risk of contingencies or

>protect the organization against such contingenciesCCWG-Accountability

>must structure its work to ensure that stress tests can be (i) designed

>(ii) carried out and (iii) its results being analyzed timely before the


>  Alice Jansen:you should all have scroll control

>  Bruce Tonkin:There are some standard methodolgies for discussig risk.

>Usually you can rate likelihood in say 5 levels - ie no likely, may

>happen, moderate etc.,

>  Keith Drazek:I think it's premature to start assigning probabilities

>and using those to cull the list at this early stage.

>  J:But Bruce this isn't risk assesment. We only need to do that if

>there are unintended consequences to redress mechanism

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Yes Bruce  even the work that

>DSSA WG did a few years back  we used similar "risk values'" for things

>  Bruce Tonkin:Likewise can talk about consequences - usually 5 levels

>of conseauence - from miinor up tto catastrohic - Ie the end of the Internet.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):That also  @Bruce

>  Bruce Tonkin:The Board and staff use likelihood and consequence and

>this are represented in about 5 colours - with Red being bad etc.

>  Keith Drazek:We should be identifying potential areas of weakness and

>developing stress tests to demonstrate to NTIA and the world that ICANN

>is in fact ready (under the new accountability reforms and structures)

>to take on this responsibility.

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Thomas.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Usually the likliehood versus consequence analysis is used

>to prioritize mitigation etc.   So I would assume you don't want a list

>of a 100 possible risks - but would be useful to identify top 10 and

>use these for discussions.

>  Greg Shatan:+1 to Bruce

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@bruce -- I am saying numerical

>probabilities and costs of consequence are not essential to make this

>exercise useful.

>  Bruce Tonkin:"J" - what is your full name for the record

>  Keith Drazek:Cast a wide net now, then we'll get down to the details

>after we've developed the list.

>  J:Jonathan Zuck, sorry

>  Vrikson Acosta:Good morning, afetrnoon or night. Finally, I could


>  Bruce Tonkin:Thanks Jonathan.

>  David McAuley (Registries):Do we even have a basis for truncating

>stress tests under consideration ­ preference , for now at least,

>should be on side of inclusion, not exclusion ­ who would have

>foreseen, for instance, that ICANN Board would not establish a standing

>IRP panel when Art. IV of bylaws said they would?

>  Greg Shatan:Jonathan -- too tired to type your whole name?

>  arasteh:mathieu

>  arasteh:I am not connected .

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh we are well aware, are trying

>everything to call you, without success

>  arasteh:However, I have provided substantial and intensive draftinh

>on your text

>  arasteh:Why it was not discussed z

>  Sivasubramanian M:The stress tests are more relevant and probable are

>internal stresses that are not listed as part of the scenarios at all.

>For example, what happens if ALAC and GNSO does not see eye to eye? 

>What happens if ccTLDs and gTLDs strongly disagree? What happens if

>ccTLDs that are not part of ICANN oppose ccTLD policies and programs?

>(all the above on matter pertainining to IANA as well as ICANN, leaving

>ICANN in a weaker position to handle IANA ).  And what happens if there

>is an escalated conflict between ICANN Board and Staff?  These are the

>tests that we could safely go over and debate, so as to strengthen the

>organization within like a firmly standing fortress capabale of

>handling any external threats

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@arasteh : I did mention them on the

>list adn tried to respond to you.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Yes Avri - I think it is more of an exercise in

>priortising the risks that you wnat to do a deep dive with respect to a

>stress test.   I ran a full scenario analysis.

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):risks could be simply categorized into "high"

>or "med" "low risk levels etc.

>  Keith Drazek:This is a great topic for discussion in Frankfurt.

>  Bruce Tonkin:Yes - agreed Robin.     The leel of risk is usually done

>as a combination of likelihood and consequence.

>  Greg Shatan:Very likely/likely/unlikely/remote is another scale to use.

> Numerical probabilities is a red herring.

>  Jonathan Zuck:Agree

>  Keith Drazek:In addition to Eric Breuner WIlliams, who else has been

>leading this effort?

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I agree @Kieth

>  Bruce Tonkin:Agreed Greg - no need for numerical probability.

>  Keith Drazek:Do we need additional volunteers?

>  Bruce Tonkin:As Avri has pointed it the assemssemtn of likelihood is

>usually subjective.   Consquence can be a bit more defined usually.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):and we do have access to the

>tools  that DSSA - WG published  that might be of some use...

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:even if you came up with precentage

>probability, it's VERY difficult to assess cost of consequence in order

>to finish the equation (probability x cost )

>  Bruce Tonkin:Jacks Khawaja on ICANN staff could probabkly provide a

>tempalte that the Baord and staff use - to help assess risks if that is

>of benefit to the group.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I think that could be useful


>  Samantha Eisner:I can see what templates Jacks may have

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Pragmatic, for sure.    We are not promising

>to come up with accountability mechanisms to prevent/address EVERY

>single stress test.

>  arasteh:grace

>  James Bladel-GNSO:I participate but am woefully behind on Area 4

>mailing list.

>  arasteh:Pls kindly advise what is the problem

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):list at




>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:The WA4 list is at


>  Avri Doria (ATRT):worng one from me

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i get my list confused between cwg and ccwg - hae

>bnoth opne in my browser

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:You have to Join the WA4 list in order to

>send emails to that list.

>  Adam Peake:Mr. Arasteh, ICANN staff have been trying to connect you

>since the start  of the call.  Aplogies for the difficulties.  Could

>you see the provate chat requests from Alice Jansen and Brenda Brewer. 

>Thank you

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):i think it is safer to speak of likelyhood measure

>than Probabilty proper.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Indeed @Avri

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:'top' contingencies are those with the

>most damaging consequences, I would think

>  Avri Doria (ATRT):who?

>  Sébastien (ALAC):Eric is on the call

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Yes Eric IS on the call

>  Keith Drazek:Is Eric in Adobe?

>  Greg Shatan:He is in Adobe Connect.

>  Keith Drazek:Perhaps we can put it out to the list?

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):He is listed in the AC Room


>  Keith Drazek:Sorry it was old.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):Ahh  he is now typing  Good :-)

>  Rudi Daniel:+1 No decision on first call

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):OK, I'll type

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:+1 @Keith -- to the whole list, not just


>WA4 list

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):my  browser has been stuck, i choose to


>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I just want to confirm about the process  of the

>stress test list

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):OK   that is settled then can we

>move on soon?

>  Vrikson Acosta:Should local rcountries egulations be taken into

>account for WS4 new proposal of bylaws?

>  Vrikson Acosta:Or just US laws?

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):it may be obvisous to others but would it be a

>fair understanding to assume we will work on the stress test list to

>see what needs to be tested before the stewardship transition, and some 

>which can be worked on the long term?

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:@Vrikson : if you can provide clarity

>about consequence, it is eligible

>  Brenda Brewer:Kavousse has joined the phone line

>  Brenda Brewer:Julia Wolman joins the phone line

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I sent the chat question

>  Samantha Eisner:What if some of the contingencies do not necessarily

>impact accountability issues, and are more general risks to the


>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):audio is not working

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):I sent my question on the chat

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@samantha, that is an issue, some of the

>candidate scenarios may not present accountability issues, but more

>general corporate governence, or other issues.

>  Izumi Okutani (ASO):Athina will ask the question on my behalf

>  Roelof Meijer:All, I am sorry but have to go and join another meeting.

>See you in Frankfurt

>  David McAuley (Registries):@Samantha, @Eric  ­ can you give an

>example of a contingency that involves to general operation rather than

>accountability to help us think that through

>  Keith Drazek:Seem that stress tests *could* be divided into WS1 and


>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):Thank you for this clarification. Makes sense

>to me

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@david, please send the query to the WS4

>list or to me tomorrow.

>  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC AP- Region):I have t leave in a minute to

>travel to an offsite meeting Sorry I will see some of you in Frankfurt

>next week...

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):Safe travels Cheryl.

>  David McAuley (Registries):Thanks @Eric - I plan to join WA4 in the


>  Samantha Eisner:@David, given the different facets of accountability,

>many items touch on facets of accountability, but depending on how

>broad the workload is, issues such as a Domain Industry Financial

>Crisis might be more difficult to move into the rubric of

>accountability.  Would ICANN's reserve fund management and budgeting

>work be sufficient mitigation to address this contingency.  (as an

>example, but not suggesting that htere are no accountability facets to

>how ICANN manages its funds. (example off the top of my head)

>  Keith Drazek:When is the next WA4 meeting?

>  David McAuley (Registries):Thnaks @Sam

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Samantha,

>would it be possible for you to provide input to the individual items

>on the list of contingencies so we can be sure to have all the info /

>documents / previous work that ICANN has done on these?

>  Samantha Eisner:@Thomas, I can work through the list to do that

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Great!

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Thanks!

>  Keith Drazek:sounds like a constructive exercise to me.

>  Greg Shatan:Thank you, Alan!

>  Alice Jansen:Please mute your line if not speaking!

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:Guess I could do a 'pitch' on

>post-transition vision

>  Keith Drazek:+1 Alan....we need to discuss if/how/when the IANA

>Transition track and the ICANN Accountability WS1 track may sync up

>  Keith Drazek:or "must" sync up perhaps

>  Greg Shatan:Keith -- I don't think it's an if.  I  agree with your

>"must," however.

>  Keith Drazek:how/when/must then!

>  Jonathan Zuck:+1

>  Sivasubramanian M:Stress Tests that require solutions from Community:





>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):@siv, thanks

>  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]:@Siva -- some interesting scenarios in

>there.   Around 40, actually.

>  Sivasubramanian M:More are needed. But some of these scearios could

>be deleted, and discussions on those specific scenarios could be

>internal and without much publicity

>  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Eric and Steve

>  Keith Drazek:It's the CWG Transition Group that is making the

>connection with the CCWG Accountability

>  Keith Drazek:and vice versa

>  Eric Brunner-Williams (ebw):i'll look at them in my morning (12 hours

>from now)

>  Keith Drazek:not really the ICG

>  Vrikson Acosta:Good luck for the one of you going to Frankfurt next

>week. I will join online

>  Alan Greenberg (ALAC):ICG call tomorrow?

>  Keith Drazek:yes at 2000 hrs if I'm not mistaken

>  Keith Drazek:UTC

>  Greg Shatan:The division of labor on accountability between the CWG

>and CCWG is clear from looking at both groups' charters.

>  Greg Shatan:Legal advicd should not require "passing the hat." But it

>is a good expression of frustration....

>  Keith Drazek:Let's discuss the legal advisor in Frankfurt. Thanks


>  Rudi Daniel:thx all..

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:I'll have any lawyer disbarred who

>will not give us the advice required by the instructions!

>  Sivasubramanian M:@ Alan /Keith Clashes with 21 UTC RFP 3B meeting

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Why are we allowing speakers who

>do not have the floor interrupt the chair in mid sentence, repeatedly?

>  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]:Not acceptable to me, and I demand

>AGAIN we lay down some cvil discourse now!!!!

>  Athina Fragkouli (ASO):thank you all

>  Pär Brumark (GAC, Niue):Thx all. See most of you in Frankfurt.

>  Alice Jansen:Thank you for joining this call!

>  Sivasubramanian M:Bye

>  Keith Drazek:Thanks all

>  Thomas Rickert (co-chair, m, GNSO Council, eco Association):Thanks all!

>  David McAuley (Registries):thanks

>  Robin Gross (GNSO-NCSG):thanks, bye

>  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair:Bye everyone


  • No labels