Sub-Group Members:   Athina Fragkouli, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Julia Wolman, Par Brumark, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer


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


CCWG ACCT Stress Tests Meeting #4 15 April.doc

CCWG ACCT Stress Tests Meeting #4 15 April.pdf


The Adobe Connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


Accountability Stress Tests WP Meeting #4 on 15 April

Link:  ST-WP Drafts -

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

P1 last paragraph will be edited. ST of interest to CWG will be added. 

ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1

Edward Morris' additional ST will be #26

STs # 3, 4, 29, 11, 27, 17 - Board Inaction: ability to spur the Board to make a decision in order to trigger a reconsideration or IRP is not firmly established in any
of the design powers and mechanisms yet. Outreach to legal on Board inaction has not led to formal feedback. Suggestion that threaten Board of removal to solve for 
Board inaction is not a formal mechanism. Expanding on ATRT recommendation #9 language in the bylaws might be sufficient to trigger the IRP and other
review mechanisms that are being worked on in Work Party 2. Conversation with WP1 to ensure inducing Board action is a community power. WP2 discussion
about whether or not existing redress mechanisms could somehow be triggered by a failure to act. 

ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note

Steve del Bianco flagged that Preserving AoC commitments in ICANN bylaws will be discussed in WP1

Suggestion that better to have Bylaw provision that forces Board  an accountability to the community to respond to Advisory Committee formal advice.     - Advisory Committees would benefit from this. Outreach to ACs might be needed. 

Community Veto  STs #3, 4, 19, 10, 20, 15

ACTION ITEM - remove strike through  

ST #18 GAC 

Discussion is pending. Some GAC support for ST recommendation.

Should more urgent issues come forward from WP1 - WP2, stress test 18 still needs discussion - would cut back on 14 - 17 



Steve provided GAO with overview of STs

ST #21

Suggestion to amend ST 21 in light af CWG remarks concerning appeal mechanism and respect national legislation on redelegation

ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed

Consider including reference to GAC principles 

ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Steve to refine paragraph on page 1

ACTION ITEM -Jonathan to recirculate explanatory note

ACTION ITEM - remove strike through  

ACTION ITEM - Read CWG input and incorporate any effect this may have on ST 21 as needed

ACTION ITEM - Cheryl to contact Bart Boswinkel/Bernie Turcotte to incorporate language 

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (4/15/2015 05:45) Welcome to the Accountability Stress Tests WP meeting #4 on 15 April. 

  Brenda Brewer: (05:45) Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:01) Hi all!

  Brenda Brewer: (06:03) you have everyone in Adobe

  Brenda Brewer: (06:03) no apologies

  Alice Jansen: (06:04) V9 -

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:04) I;ve noted that

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:12) Sorry for not being upto date with the agenda, may I confirm which ST# are we talking about?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:12) Several  but #17   is a good example  all those hat are effected  by a risk of Board Inaction

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:13) OK thanks Cheryl!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:13) 3,4,29, 11 +17

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:16) ohh and 27

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:16) thanks for the comprehensive list

  Avri Doria: (06:18) do not know if it is relevant to stress test discussions, but as we drift away from being a consensus based organization to a voting
organization are we moving into ta tyrnanny of the majority model.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:19) and well OUT of my pesonal confort zone ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:24) These are ST's #3, 4, 19, 10 & 20

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:24) Also 15

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:28) Action Item just noted  in discussion pod   re Community Veto   is incorrect  it shiuld read  next version of the ST Doc  will  NOT have the text shown as strikerhrough

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:28) apologies if I am bringing up an issue that has been discussed and sorted out in a previous call, but I would like to ask why forcing the board to respond to ACs's advise should be a WS1 item.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:28) ST #18  makes sense to me

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:28) you are not alone! Steve

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:29) that weekend document that Avri and I worked on is here

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:29) seems like a reasonable solution respecting GAC's possible changes in their definition of consensus

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:29) Right, Izumi.   But I am not confident that EU GAC reps appreciate the compromise.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:30) Same situation for me, I missed the CCWG call yesterday, so once we are done with the planned agenda would be nice to have little more background on the need to address board's inacction-

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:30) Noted Steve about EU GAC reps

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (06:32) thanks Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:33) Noted Izumi  we will round back to thsat for you and I will ask Jonathan  to lead on this for us...

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:33) thanks Cheryl

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:35) % & ^  are related to Financial Crisis   5 is specific  to the DNS  Industry

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:35) ST 21 should amending in light af CCWG remarks concering appeal mechanism and respect national legislation on redelegation

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:35) argh  should read #5 & 6

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:36) It's consistent with my understanding, not about the probability. Thanks Steve for explaining this to GAO . When submitting it, it may be worth clearly describing the intention that this is not able  probabllity.

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:36) True, Izumi.   Should we add to page 1, under the charter

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:36) good idea

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:37) i am in the AirPort and Can not speak

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:37) ST 21 is on page 5 of the doc

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:38) CCWG should have been CWG

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:39) @Finn -- is that edit in first paragraph of the Proposed measures?

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (06:39) sorry i am on my Way to gccs2015 in the Haague

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:40) In relation to Finn's comment: In light of the answer from the CWG (sent to the CCWG list by Mathieu) with regard to their expectations from the CCWG, I would like to ask what effect this will have on ST21. In this regard I would like to point to the importance of taking into account the GAC principles

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:41) +1 Julia

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:45) Yes thank you:-), wording is important and so is reference to the GAC principles

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:50) Please do

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (06:50) For the record this issue has not yet been discussed in the GAC

  Steve DelBianco  [GNSO - CSG]: (06:50) nothing more from me

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:54) OK great

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:54) Perfect  Thanks  Joinathasn...

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:54) thanks

  Alice Jansen: (06:54) Meeting transcript -

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:54) Ohh  more letters than in my usual typos (sorry Jonathan)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:55) Thanks Alice...

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (06:58) Understood. thanks for the update - as a quick observation I'm not sure how criteircal it is not to address it immediately but I think would be desriable to be addressed with some small changes

  Avri Doria: (06:58) 9.1. 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.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (06:59) @Jonathan, I agree that there has to be requirement in the bylaws (like the ATRT9.1 implementation that is underway) in order to require the board to look at advice/have teeth to enforce not looking at the advice

  Avri Doria: (07:00) Note the 9.1 recommendations does allow the consideration of AC advice to rise to the level of GAC advice.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:01) Thx all!

  Julia Wolman GAC Denmark: (07:03) Thank you all, bye

  Athina Fragkouli (ASO): (07:03) bye

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:03) Thanks Cheryl Steve all. Thanks Jonathan for the update!

  • No labels