Sub-group Members:   Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Finn Petersen, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Julia Wolman, Maura Gambassi, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Schneider, Tom Dale

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad


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




1)  ST 18 for CCWG Consideration

2)  Divergence response on ST 29, 30 21, and 33

3)  New Stress Tests

4)  Re-running all Stress Tests on new model (if needed)


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

Note: 9 participants

1)  ST 18 for CCWG Consideration

  • Document at under ST 18 rationale.docx 12 Oct 2015
  • Given criticality of ST18 it will be presented to the full CCWG
  • Remove example in both places.
  • New rationale for including ST18 as per requests on last call.
  • Thomas Schneider (GAC): fyi: among gov input in the public comment period i have the following that failed to see a sense/rational in st18: SP, AR, FR, NO, BR,
  • New document will be included in the participant reading pack for Dublin so it can be discussed by the full CWG.
  • GAC participant still do not understand the need for ST18.

2)  Divergence response on ST 29, 30 21, and 33

  • Document at - Oct 12 2015 Stress Tests - analysis of PC2 [version 2].docx
  • ST 29, 30 Consequences proposed by the authors of ST29,30 should not of been included as is and should be replaced as proposed. Proposed: ST team recommends that the “consequence” stated in ST 29 and ST 30 be replaced with
    • ”ICANN’s enforcement of registry and registrar contract terms might be blocked by an IRP ruling citing amended Mission and Core Values. “
    • Also, the ST team recommends that the conclusion of ST 29 and 30 be replaced with “Proposed measures would be adequate to challenge ICANN enforcement actions, but it is unlikely that IRP panels would block enforcement of voluntary contract terms and consensus policies”
    • ST21 - second read - recommendation to maintain this as is.
      • ST Team believes we should retain current ST 21 analysis and not recommend other actions, pending policy development by the ccNSO.
      • ST33 - amend:  The ST team recommends that we amend the conclusion of ST 33 (para 988) to
        •  “ Proposed accountability measures would be adequate, provided that the bylaws requirement for a “bottom-up, consensus-based, multistakeholder process” is interpreted by the board and IRP panelists to include assessment of how decisions were reached in an AC or SO.”
        • Re - not allowing ACs to vote –
          • The ST team notes that a small minority of commenters opposed giving ACs voting roles, and therefore recommends…

3)  New Stress Tests

  • Include new stress test for possible deadlock for a change to bylaws or fundamental bylaws.

4) Re-running all Stress Tests on new model (if needed)

  • If the CCWG settles on a new MODEL SDB noted that all stress tests would have to be rerun.
  • There was a suggestion on the CCWG call that the ST WP look at running the stress tests vs the three current models. Participants should consider running 1 test per category for a total of 5. However and hopefully coming out of Dublin the number of models will be reduced.

AOB - none


Documents Presented

Chat Transcript


  Brenda Brewer: (10/13/2015 14:01) Welcome to Stress Tests Meeting #12 on 13th October @ 19:30 UTC!   Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:21) thanks for loading the doc -- and positioning at ST 18


  Brenda Brewer: (14:21) You're welcome!


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:22) hi team


  Brenda Brewer: (14:22) Good day all!


  Brenda Brewer: (14:23) I can hear you, but you are very quiet


  Brenda Brewer: (14:23) Yes it is!


  Brenda Brewer: (14:24) do you still want a dial out Cheryl?


  Brenda Brewer: (14:24) great!  calling now.


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:25) Hi Thomas


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (14:26) Hi. I can' hear anything...


  Brenda Brewer: (14:27) Thomas, we are quiet so far!


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:27) hi Tom


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (14:27) are there only 3 participants?


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:27) noone is talking


  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (14:28) Hello all


  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (14:30) There is an Irish song called 'The Rocky Road to Dublin.' I have been thinking about it lately for some reason.


  Brenda Brewer: (14:31) just yours...ready to go


  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (14:31) There is a version by The Dubliners and a punkish version by the Dropkick Murphys


  Brenda Brewer: (14:37) just you


  Brenda Brewer: (14:37) but i can give to all


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (14:38) welcome Finn


  Maura Gambassi - IT: (14:40) hi :-)


  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (14:41) Ciao Maura


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:45) how is the "significant majority" measured?


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:46) 16 of 20 public comments in favor of ST 18, Jorge


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:46) if we regard the public comment period there is support from parts of the GNSO, with other SO/AC silent and mixed positions within the GAC


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:48) the new rationale begs the question why a stress test is needed, what is the risk to be remediated


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:48) that makes perfect sense. We need to really need to stop putting the board in conflict resolution mode


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:50) this restriction is no different than the one imposed on the GNSO. The board should only be looking at process, not playing Solomon


  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:51) the rationale has been circulated in the GAC subgroup so I assume that people are looking at the new text


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:51) Thanks, Julia.   If you can, please share what reaction you are seeing on the GAC subgroup list


  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:51) No reaction ydet


  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (14:52) *yet


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:52) DId ¥ou say Nyet, Julia?


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:53) From a logical point of view there seems to be still a gap in the reasoning, the rationale, because there is no link to a risk which has to be remediated.


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (14:54) fyi: among gov input in the public comment period i have the following that failed to see a sense/rational in st18: SP, AR, FR, NO, BR,


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:55) There is also some degree of lack of accuracy, because for instance GNSO guidance (advice) under the new procedure recently adopted (GPolicy Guidance I think) makessuch  GNSO advice binding on the Board unless it decides against with 2/3 majority


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:56) Hence it is not accurate to describe the GAC advice as an exceptional issue - in fact it is less forceful than GNSO advice (which is not supported by the same degree of consensus)


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:56) exactly


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:57) I wonder if the mic works


  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:57) yes


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (14:58) Steve: Regarding the reasoning based on capture please re-read the mail of Suzanne of March 2015 (the one you cited several times). There is a clear link to the risk of capture by governments: “As a threshold matter, the USG considers the stress test both appropriate and necessary to meet the requirement that the IANA transition should not yield a government-led or an intergovernmental replacement for NTIA’s current stewardship role. … Improving ICANN’s accountability includes ensuring that ICANN is not susceptible to capture or undue influence by any one party or set of stakeholders, including governments.” This is the reason that the NTIA gave in March. And this is what a number of governments can not agree to.  


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:00) Thank you, Thomas.  But you are referring to NTIA statements, while we are talking about the CCWG proposal here.    CCWG notes that NTIA believes ST 18 is needed, bu that is not the whole rationale for CCWG


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:07) happy to discuss further in Dublin. Wish others were present on this call in order to really understand what the problem is and what the best way to solve it is


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:07) don't tell the ccnso :-)


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:08) they also receive/are affected...


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (15:08) steve: regarding GAC advice on new gTLDs, take the PICS: there, ALAC and the BC were absolutely in line with GAC advice. - actually wanted to go even further (e.g. freeze). so the GAC was not alone with its positions...


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:09) If the issue is power balance: it would be good to talk about it openly - because this seems a zero-sum-game, and I don't think we want to go down that path


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:10) you all have scroll control today go back top 3


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:11) I most certainly agree Jorge


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:11) sorry!


  Thomas Schneider (GAC): (15:12) Dear all, i am sorry but i have to leave soon, as it is past 2200 my time and i should put my kids to bed... so good night everybody!


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:13) thanks for joining Thomas


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:15) On ST21: would stronger diversity and openness rules help?


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:17) that is on wp3, right? perhaps liaising with them could help...


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:18) me too...


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:18) very overwhelmed


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:18) we need a support group


  Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC APRegional Member: (15:18) common state for us all I suspect ;-)


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:21) On ACs voting: let's see whether we end up with voting at all. As you know there are moves in the direction of consensus/near consensus


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:24) we need a ST-automatic machine :P


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:24) Jorge -- I'm betting ST 18 won't be among your favorites!


  Julia Wolman, Denmark, GAC: (15:24) Good idea


  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:25) at least it's a very interesting one ;-)


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:25) Agree, Cheryl.   We will probably select either MEM, Designator, or stick with Member


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:25) AGree. we can do it!


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:26) Guiness!


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:26) I will send our document to ICANN Staff so they can place this in the Reading packet for Dublin. Thanks all


  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (15:26) Limited Stress Stress Testing


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:27) The only change frm v2 is on  page 2, where we are recommending no change


  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:27) giving ACs a vote, that is

  • No labels