Transcript

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #2 18 March.doc

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #2 18 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5huix6yvpp/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-stress-test-18mar15-en.mp3

Notes

ST-WP - Call # 2 - 18 March 2015 

ST-WP Wiki Page https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents 

- ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday

- ST-WP breakfast meeting on Monday, 23 March at 7:30 

Stress test # 3 & 4

- Suggestion to split stress test into two rather than combined (refer to Sam Eisner comment) 

ACTION ITEM – Steve to split 3 and 4

Stress test #19

Designed to surface role of root zone maintainer (publishing function). Injunction is what would happen in this scenario. If that happens, the community could hold Board and management accountable to execute community approved policy.

There is no immunity that goes to the root zone maintainer by virtue of IANA functions contract. Issue being posed is what is the root zone maintainer supposed to do if receives verification to publish root but then competing court order that objects to publication. 

Ingenuity clause?

Can the community find a way to hold Board and management accountable to implementing community-developed policy. 

Whether or not the root zone maintainer has immunity or not does not change what the stress test is supposed to be about. 

This stress test could also be compliance driven. 

Raises issue of foreign jurisdiction and impact on this. 

ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order.

Would ICANN be engaged in process to enforce views? What would ICANN's reaction be? What could the community do to influence this reaction?

ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday

Stress Test #20

How can community assert its views - relates to #19 (court order etc). 

Community should be empowered to ask ICANN to litigate and execute policies - 

Is it the right accountability mechanism?

What if community asks ICANN to litigate but no basis to litigate?

Insurability issue - health of organization - business integrity should be considered.

Whether or not there may need to be any limits, conditions for this accountability measures may be a question for legal experts. 

ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20

Stress test # 10 & # 24

Tied to "golden bylaw" (mission creep).

No feedback.

Stress Test #12

Tied to supermajority to avoid capture.

Look holistically at capture or undue influence. Standing CCWG e.g.: what protections are we building into that to make sure no entity can influence across stakeholder groups?

What are the mechanisms in SO/ACs, what mechanisms of responsibility/accountability are there across structures within organization to have protection against capture? Do these need to be checked and reinforced? There is a broader issue. 

Evaluate In addition to super majority, what constitutes adequate quorum mechanisms within SO/ACs comprising community to guard against capture.

ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture 

Stress Test #13

How do we prevent purposeful paralysis of ICANN (review redress mechanisms)?

We set objective to have review redress more accessible, affordable etc. should the affordability and accessibility be restricted to community? 

Stress test #16

No feedback.

Stress test #18

Relates to government capture.

Stress test should stand but further dialogue needed with the GAC. 

Stress test #22

No feedback.

Stress test #23

ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements) 

Stress test #14

No feedback.

Stress test #15

No feedback. 

Stress test #25

Relates to CWG and ICG. 

No feedback. 

V8 will be circulated on Friday (doc, pdf, redline)  

Action Items

- ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to circulate a draft on stress test #21 by COB Thursday

ACTION ITEM – Steve to split 3 and 4

ACTION ITEM - Steve to check what RZM process is if court order.

ACTION ITEM - Sam to refocus problem statement for stress test #19 and refine language by COB Thursday

ACTION ITEM: Rephrase stress test #20

ACTION ITEM - Evaluate SO/AC/SGs accountability mechanisms to guard against capture - Add quorum and accountability mechanisms to avoid capture 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify stress test #23 language (PDP and implementation requirements, anyone can participate in PDP and public comment process, public comment periods on contracting requirements)

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen: (3/18/2015 05:47) Welcome to the ST-WP call #2. 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

  Brenda Brewer: (05:58) Please stand by while the audio bridge gets set up.  Slight delay today.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:59) There was apparently some stress test that Adobe overlooked...

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (05:59) Conf bridge operator had no call scheduled for STRESS TESTS.   He hung up on me!

  Brenda Brewer: (05:59) They are activating it right now.  My apologies!

  Alice Jansen: (06:02) the document may be found at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%20-%20SE.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426071415000&api=v2

  Alice Jansen: (06:04) Brenda is working on Cheryl's dial-out - thanks for your patience.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (06:04) we finished last ST call at end of page 4 in the document.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:06) am still trying to call in

  Alice Jansen: (06:06) For those who are joining us, the call has not started yet - we are waiting for Cheryl to join (dial-out issues)

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:07) am in

  Alice Jansen: (06:09) Cheryl is now on the call

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (06:10) Sam Eisner sent text for Compromise of Credentials (#11): ICANN has committed to annually seeking SysTrust Certification for its role as the Root Zone KSK manager, which it has done every year since 2010.  https://www.iana.org/dnssec/systrust.  The IANA Department has achieved EFQM Committed to Excellence certification for its Business Excellence activities.  http://www.iana.org/about/excellence.  Under C.5.3 of the IANA Functions Contract, ICANN has undergone annual external, independent audits of its security provisions for the IANA functions.

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (06:11) This stress test no. 21 is in conflict contries which national regulation

  Berry Cobb: (06:12) ccwg-accountability4@icann.org

  Brenda Brewer: (06:12) ccwg-accountability4@icann.org

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO-CSG]: (06:12) Its  "ccwg-accountability4@icann.org"

  Alice Jansen: (06:15) Cocktail ends at 8:30 PM

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:19) what page are we on now?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:20) The stakes are different but are the means to hold the organization accountable necessarily different?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:20) page 6

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:20) FINALLY  in the AC Room !!

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:20) Thanks Jonathan

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:21) sorry I hope I muted in time, had a coughing fit :-)-O

  Samantha Eisner: (06:38) I think its fine to have a stress test focusing on the RZM, and we can address it.  We're just not getting to the right issues in the stress test as currently written

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:39) Thus a rewrite of the 'problem statement is needed... Agree 2Sam

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:39) @sam

  Samantha Eisner: (06:39) When we discuss immunity, it's not clear that immunity means there's the ability to ignore court orders, but only immunity from liability for their actions

  Samantha Eisner: (06:40) Agree with Jonathan that focusing on ICANN may make this clearer

  Samantha Eisner: (06:42) Sure

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:47) Exactly

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:51) especially since both of thos things will be subject to interpretation by the board and not really matters of "fact"

  Samantha Eisner: (06:53) Can I clarify the insurance/cost issue?

  Samantha Eisner: (06:55) Agree that it should NOT stop from accountability measures

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:56) Exactly @Jonathan

  Samantha Eisner: (06:56) just suggesting that accountability measures as we've discussed here that the community could - as a result of the challenge - that litigation could be forced.  BUT having other levels of accountability measures are key, all teh way up to spilling the Board

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:56) I fully agree

  Samantha Eisner: (06:56) +1 Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:56) YUP

  Samantha Eisner: (07:08) This may not be a stress test that we solve through specific accountability measures, but we need to clearly test every proposed solution to assess teh ability for capture

  Samantha Eisner: (07:17) there are no exclusions in the reconsideration or IRP that would preclude ccTLD operators from invoking

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:21) Yes, this conversation is happening in wp2 and has not yet been resolved

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:21) ahhh Thanks  @Jonathan,   so we will have more later

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:26) this questio n isn't our remit at the moment. we just need to identify risks

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:28) Agree Thank you @Jonathan...  We will of course need to discuss the proposed mechanism(s)  later  runing this ST...

  Alice Jansen: (07:34) Letter can be found here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Letter+to+CCWG-Accountability+CoChairs

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:35) Yes

  Finn Petersen, GAC: (07:37) The stress semms reasonable - but further diaogue is needed with the GAC

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:48) contracted party market power falls under antitrust jurisdiction of the party

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:49) Exactly

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:01) Istanbul

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:01) Franfurt

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:02) Great job guys. Great sub group.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:02) Bye all THANK  to you all :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:03) Staff   in Nots  Timeline  REDline

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (08:03) Notes *sigh*