Sub-Group Members:  Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Gary Hunt, Jonathan Zuck, Malcolm Hutty, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer


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



Adobe connect recording is available here:

The audio recording is available here:


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


We will be discussing the update to stress testing and the document Malcolm Hutty prepared.

Update to stress test 

Role of courts: Work to be done: convert these two stress tests into our table format. To apply our tests we have to understand what degree 
of enforceability the final reference model has.  And when that is know we will revisit the tests under the conditions of the new model.

ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format

Corruption: no additional work needed.

Capture by insiders: Will leave this as it is. WP3 may address this. 

Enforcement of contract provisions that exceed limited mission of ICANN:  what investigate and respond to mean remains to be determined. 

ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests 

Member/Designator Representatives fail to honor voting instructions from their AC/SO: do we still need to keep this stress test? Suggestion to add a 
fourth paragraph to suggest that in addition to informing community that vote is invalid, there would be possible step of replacing person who cast the 
vote. We should not tie it to a particular office, we should use term "delegated representative". Part of continuum in case of misrepresentation. "delegated 
and designated to cast". Avoid Chair, office etc terms. Agreed language: Person designated by AC/SO to communicate the AC/SO vote 

Revocation and resassignments of ccTLD manager - Brought up as part of public comment. Suggestion to have ccNSO develop policy pursuant to FoI. 

Response to litigation - This does not insulate ICANN from jurisdictional reach of governements.

NTIA statement - 4 stress tests were extracted from letter. Are they covered by existing stress tests? 

ST-NTIA 1 - It means everyone has opportunity to participate. If some do not wish to participate, it does not affect multistakeholder model. 

Important to articulate that it is opportunity and open ability which should be critical tests for robustness of model we are running. Once you opt in, you can't 
opt in and out. Designator/member opt-in may only need one. 

Do we want to consider whether that can be altered? 

Should we advocate that invitations to exercise votes are open invitation to participate? 

--> Invitation should be open to all 

ST-NTIA-2  - Do we need to ask for processes on AC/SOs to make sure the communities are aware of voting? We can add that need 
transparency rules as part of voting process. Have we built requirements into our community empowerment mechanism? Stress Test 
could be community choosing to ignore advice in its deliberations and voting. 

ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point.

IRP is set up for making decisions that are binding on Board and not binding on SO/ACs. Are we now saying IRP is viable mechanism for 
appealing against SO/AC issues? Or are we saying Board has ability to force on SO/AC? 

Could ATRT review these cases and criteria? 

Consider ombudsman. 

ST-NTIA-3 - It is our objective to employ open, bottom-up processes. If they were specific decisions acting to exclude new 
participants, this commitment (para 89) would give basis for challenge. We should document this stress test.

ST-NTIA 4 -  None of SO/ACs have operational role although GNSO creeps into it through its implementation review teams. Not 
sure if needs to be done. We have distinguish between models in terms of responses. 

Stress Test Analysis for test 23

Malcolm Hutty walked the WP through 

Most stress tests suggest IRP as way to challenge and assume that they are enforceable. 

It is universally accepted that IRP will be binding arbitration. It does not necessarily relate to scenario in stress test 23. 

Does ICANN volunteer submit to arbitration? We need to analyze how ICANN can be held accountable for that decision. 

We will need to come back to this topic on our next call. This document will also need to be brought to larger CCWG group and suggest that 
it be flagged as a document on reading list. We have more to do on document dated 20 June. 

ACTION ITEM – Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. 

- Suggestion that the document depends upon 2 assumptions that should be tested with Counsel:  Can ICANN decline to accept binding IRP?  and 
2) can anyone enforce a binding IRP decision in courts that recognize binding arbitration?

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format

ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests 

ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point.

ACTION ITEM – Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. 


Documents Presented

Updates to Stress Testing for CCWG 20-Jun.pdf

Stress Test Analysis Test 23 rev 2015-06-281.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (7/8/2015 05:36) Welcome to Stress Tests Meeting #9 on 8th July!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (05:56) Morning, Alice and Brenda.  Thanks for loading that doc.  Do you aslo have Malcolm's doc that I attached ?

  Brenda Brewer: (05:57) yes, it is uploaded also.  ready to show upon your request.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) Hi all

  Alice Jansen: (05:58) They are also posted on the wiki -

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:58) Hi!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) Thanks Alice :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) Hi Par

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:59) Hi Cheryl!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:59) Hi Malcolm

  Malcolm Hutty: (05:59) Hi Cheryl, everyone

  Brenda Brewer: (06:01) all on AC

  Alice Jansen: (06:02) yes!

  Brenda Brewer: (06:02) yes, Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:02) loud and clear

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:02) Very loud Steve:-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:02) perfect plan  yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:04) Exactly   Steve as ever we are still 'restricted' by where the outcomes of the CCWG recomendations end up...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:05) please scroll to page 2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:05) now to page 3

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:05) I was just letting the newly joined people  where we are uy to in the document...

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:08) I think so

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:08) Seems so unlikely compared to compliance going easy

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:09) indeed Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:09) yes  Steve  I beleive that is a good way  of 'covering the possabilities

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:10)   with the more open  standing proposed for IRP

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:11) I would thnk that the AC/SO could simply dispose of their appointee

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:13) I don't think it's merely unlikely: I think it's asked and answered.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:14) Malcolm that was just as true in the original proposal

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:14) true

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:15) Steve is correct, there is a distinction between simple replacement and also noting that the mis-vote is never valid in the first place.

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:17) So perhaps we should note explicitly that any representative sits in an ex officio capacity and may only act as authorised; he does not act in a personal capacity

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:19) "AC/SO officer designated to cast the AC/SO vote"

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:20) yes

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:22) Person designated by AC/SO to commnicate the AC/SO vote"

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:22) AC/SO designated representattive

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:23) exactly!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:23) thanks for joining the party Malcolm  ;)

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:23) welcome!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:25) nope. clear

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:26) they're already represented elsewhere

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:27) SSAC is not participating because they don't consider themselves stakeholders, they consider themselves experts, much like lawyers

  Alice Jansen: (06:28) For those joining us, we are on page 4 of doc - NTIA statement

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:32) very faint

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:32) still mpot hearing Sam

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:32) perhaps enter as Chat?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:32) that's what she's doing

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:33) I think thta's right CLO. That fact that there's always a choice is the best safeguard

  Samantha Eisner: (06:33) I see this differently from Malcolm. i agree with Cheryl on the openness and opportunity

  Samantha Eisner: (06:34) but I think the issue is also how do we make sure the balance of the multi stakeholder voices are heard, even in a limited voting mechanism?

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:35) @Cheryl, is that something we should suggest changing? Giving Empowered SO/ACs the ability to opt-out in the future - so in Empowered SOAC(membership) to resign their membership?

  Samantha Eisner: (06:35) how do we make sure the security concerns of the SSAC, for example, are considered even if the SSAC feels that voting isn't appropriate for it. same for the GAC's public policy concerns.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:37) the same way we do now, Sam.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:37) I think the invitation is open permanently. I think we should make it so

  Alice Jansen: (06:38) for transcript purposes - please remember to state your name before speaking

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:39) @SAM -- SSAC will continue igving advice to board and to the full community.   That should continue to affect our decisions

  Samantha Eisner: (06:39) what processes are built in to make sure that votes are only cast after an open, multi stakeholder input process? are the votes within the AC/SOs determined after an open call, like we find in the PDP world? are there requirements for sufficient notice to all that this issue is under consideration?

  Samantha Eisner: (06:41) I don't agree that the advisory issue is the same within the voting realm as with other decisions in place in ICANN, as we don't have broad community voting systems today

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:42) @Sam, I think that's a very important point about SOAC inputs, we should certainly return to, but at least in its broader generality, I would think that ensuring the best inclusion in that process could safely be left until WS2. Perhaps there migh be a specific instance that might need to be WS1, if you can think of one

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:42) areed Steve...

  Samantha Eisner: (06:42) @Steve, my comment was broader than internal AC/SO rules

  Samantha Eisner: (06:43) it's about the voting process as a whole

  Samantha Eisner: (06:44) thanks Jonathan

  Samantha Eisner: (06:46) due consideration and make sure there was opportunity to provide inputs

  Samantha Eisner: (06:47) I'm not saying that. I'm asking about opportunity and notice to participate in the process as a whole

  Samantha Eisner: (06:48) we don't have to design the answer here

  Samantha Eisner: (06:48) I can write some thoughts up today to send in

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:48) Yes please Sam

  Alice Jansen: (06:49) I believe Sam means inclusiveness -

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:51) lost Avri audio

  Alice Jansen: (06:51) your audio is breaking Avri

  Alice Jansen: (06:53) This was scheduled for 90 min

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:53) I would welcome extended so we can have a full opportunty

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:53) I have a hard stop at the 120 min mark, but ok until then

  Malcolm Hutty: (06:54) I believe NTIA-3 is addressed as a Commitment in para 89 of proposal. A useful stress test, but one I believe we will satisfy

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:56) Employing open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development mechanisms processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:56) that was Para 89 of our 3-May draft proposal

  Samantha Eisner: (06:56) I don't think we can fully answer this one until we see what the model is. the question isn't just about participation of new entrants in the AC/SO, but how new participants might have a voice in the community mechanisms we're developing

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:56) It's a Core Value.   Malcolm is right, that this would be standard of review for an IRP.

  Avri Doria: (06:57) i have now managed to dial in.  i do not beleive we have any remedy for NTIA-2

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:00) IRP is not the only solution: it is the hardest, most coercive remedy. Cooperation is always also available as an approach

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:01) One woud hope so Malcolm

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:01) @Avri - no, you misunerstand the role of the IRP under the new proposal. It is not only directed to actions of the Board - it is directd to actions of ICANN

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:03) ATRT should seek to uphold ALL the Core Values and Commitments, so no need to document this one particularly

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:03) the ATRT includes these 2 criteria already: (c) assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof);316 (d) assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community; and

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:04) @Avri, yes that is my understanding. An SO is a part of ICANN

  Adam Peake: (07:04) could the Ombudsman have influence in this areas?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:04) Surely some of this can also be dealt with within the bounds f thre Organisational Reviews f the A/SOs  and not jkust to be dealt with in the AoC ATRT Review processes

  Samantha Eisner 2: (07:05) @Adam, agree that the Ombudsman is already the home for a lot of this

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:05) yup

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:05) Yes,there are a whole range of things directed to this problem - not just IRP, all of which coordinated by the guiding principles set out in the Core Vaues and Commitments

  Samantha Eisner 2: (07:05) but my earlier note in the chat raised the question - how do we make sure there aren't barriers to entry for new participants in participating in the community empowerment mechanisms?

  Adam Peake: (07:06) There;s a sub-group of WP2 looking at the role of the  Ombudsman, but  that takes the issue into WS2 I think

  Avri Doria: (07:07) my point is simlar for NTIA-2.  we have no way to enforce decsions on an ACSO.  Only the Board has such an ability. and we see now that they do not have a means of enforcing rules on the ACSO. i do not think we have an answer for NTIA-2, especially in a member situation where members are god.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (07:09) I think that this NTIA-4 is related to the issue that Fadi raised in our WEdnesday meeting in BA - while all parts of the community are gaining power through this is process, are we giving the GAC (or other groups) MORE power relative to other groups than they have today?

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:10) @Avri - well that highlights an important point to investigate and decide, because I think IRP is designed to enforce decisions on ACSOs too, where relevant. Mostly, it won't be relevant - but scenario of SOAC closing  itself to new participants would be an example where it would be. Maybe I am wrong in this understanding, but there it is

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:10) Yes Sam I believe that is probably so...

  Avri Doria: (07:11) wel theen i am asking about those.

  Avri Doria: (07:14) I think NTIA-4 is brader than Fadi's concern.

  Avri Doria: (07:15) And i do not beleive we have any control over member ACSO in the system.

  Avri Doria: (07:16) so even though Steve seems to have detemined that we have stress test that repsond to NTIA 3/4/5 I contend we don't.

  Samantha Eisner 2: (07:16) I agree, Avri

  Avri Doria: (07:17) or maybe we have the stress tests, as NTIA contributed them, but we have no mechasnism.  As for the ombundsman can help, their role is purely advisory and can help fix but can't require.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:17) No, Avri.  I added these 4 new stress tests as things we needed to add.  I did that back on 20-June.   This discussion was about what is going into the stress test analysis

  Avri Doria: (07:18) ok, but you seem to indicate we  mechansims to deal with them and i argue we don't.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:19) I don't thonk we had decide that Avri  it is indeed likely tat with these (and somne other ST's  we will show that we do not have existing or proposed mechanisms

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:20) Agree, Cheryl

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:20) When you say "Enter an IRP", does that imply agreeing to be subject to binding decision?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:26) much of this is input for WP2 since they are working on the IRP.   Malcolm -- have you sent this to WP2?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:30) p. 34 of proposal says "It is expected that judgments of the IRP Panel would be enforceable in the court of the US and other countries that accept international arbitration results."

  Samantha Eisner 2: (07:32) I have to sign off.  I'll be sending an email later.  Thanks again Jonathan for trying to channel my intervention

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:32) Thanks Sam

  Avri Doria: (07:32) i think the assumption that the Board will go against a manadatory order of the IRP is a improbable circumstance.  it is tantamoutn to saying, what about if there is an earthquake and ll the records are lost.

  Avri Doria: (07:36) where does the notion that the board can refuse to enter the IRP come from.  I missed the point where they have the pwoer to refuse to enter IRP.

  Avri Doria: (07:37) and if they do, then the fix is to disallow such an abilty.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:37) Right, Avri

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:38) Shall I turn all those "new" stress tests into the table form for our next call?

  Avri Doria: (07:38) btw, apologies for being late, i over slept.  had a ISOC even that ended just a 2 hour nap before this call.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:38) I can do that over the weekend

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:39) I can do the call next Wednesday.

  Avri Doria: (07:40) if that is the case perhaps we need to have a call sooner.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:40) Malcolm -- will you be on WP2 call later today?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:40) Your analysis should be part of that call

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:41) yes

  Avri Doria: (07:43) we also have to make sure that the analysis arguments are all consistent with decsion made so far.  i need to see evidence of the board being able to refuse to enter IRP.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:44) I might suggest that the document depends upon 2 assumptions that should be tested with COuncsel:  Can ICANN decline to accept binding IRP?  and 2) can anyone enforce a binding IRP decision in courts that recognize binding arbitration?

  Avri Doria: (07:44) agree Steve

  Avri Doria: (07:44) these should be asked today in WP2

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:44) The first of those is address in the notes section, note 2

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:45) right, Malcolm -- but get those 2 questions out there BEFORE walking thru your entire analysis.  Please !

  Avri Doria: (07:45) and it was not nice that the operators muted me such that i could not take myself off of mute.

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:46) @Cheryl, you're welcome. @Steve, shall try to

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:46) Thank you

  Gary Hunt - UK Government: (07:46) Many thanks all... bye!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:46) bye all

  • No labels