Transcript

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #1 11 March.doc

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #1 11 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6vttb9flid/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-stress-test-11mar15-en.mp3

Notes

- Stress tests cannot be finally completed until we have final draft proposals from WPs. We want to run through 25 stress tests in advance of Istanbul and have critical eye. Focus on those we have not 
gone through. 

- Cannot be detailed in third column. Let's identify potential gaps.

Stress Category I: Financial Crisis of Insolvency

- 5.6.7.8 in same block because same set of consequences - agreement to have same stress test? Agreement

Any objections to Sam's added text? 

-> Review of reserve fund is mot mandatory 

-> It's an independent review - not clear what review cycle is

= Reviewed periodically and independently

Stress Test 9 

- Reviewed Sam's added text on existing measures

 Role of Ombudsman in terms of acting as a confidential place to lodge issues in terms of consequences of corruption and whistleblowing. Chris Lahatte's suggested addition of this stress test. This would be a subset of 9. 

-> No objections to Sam's edits

Stress Category II. Failure to meet operational expectations 

- Conclusions in right column are all draft. Suggestion to send it out to CWG. 

-> Opposed to sending something to other third parties before we have sent it to CCWG due to need for consensus

-> We could write to all CCWG to check. 

-> No objections to a formal transmittal once it is approved by the CCWG

-> Some of these stress tests apply to CWG work. Undue formalism but need to be cautious about how approach these things. 

-> Could ask rapporteurs engaged in CWG to look at STs. 

-> Opposed to subgroup of a subgroup making decisions on this. Document should be out in the open.  

-> Will ensure they are aware of doing.

- Stress tests 1 and 2 are being addressed by CWG in services agreements and operational discussions. Congress has insisted on looking at CWG and CCWG together and on need to see stress tests. We are not making formal conclusions but useful to show it to them to inform work. 

-> Publish docs, communicate, don't send report formally, and see if wish to share input

-> No formal CWG liaison in ST-WP. 

ACTION ITEM: Identify CWG liaison for ST-WP

Stress test 11

Designed to be a serious stress test. 

-> Need to have a way to hold staff accountable. IT declined making presentation when asked them. Security issues are improved if people talk about this. -> Suggestion to add a measure on community briefing regarding security breaches 

-> Gap in third column - no current action in CCWG to add the above. 

-> There needs to be a way to break up two separate issues: 1) internal measures; 2) security issues as relates to SSR

= Heading to be added - after action report 

-> For ICANN's work on DNSSEC, ICANN receives certification for how it maintains work on DNSSEC - that is an existing accountability measure. There is also a requirement of audit for IANA function.

ACTION ITEM: Sam to send text on DNSSEC and IANA function audit.

Stress test 17

If ICANN is not responding to policy development or to a concern raised by SSAC, the community should be able to force it to be addressed

Stress test 21

Related to the CWG appeals process request

Need to include FoI work/outcome

Suggest to rewrite the entire premise on which this Stress Test was written

This is a very sensitive issue for the GAC (suggestion to defer to Singapore GAC communiqué that deals with the FOIWG outcome).

ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to suggest text to ensure that the FoI work is reflected

ACTION ITEM: put out another Doodle Poll for this time next week (with the option for more times later in the day)

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Identify CWG liaison for ST-WP

ACTION ITEM: Sam to send text on DNSSEC and IANA function audit.

ACTION ITEM: Eberhard to suggest text to ensure that the FoI work is reflected

ACTION ITEM: put out another Doodle Poll for this time next week (with the option for more times later in the day)

Documents Presented

http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen 3: (3/11/2015 04:19) Welcome to ST-WP call #1 - Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (05:55) I am dialling in now :-)-O

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:57) I am waiting for my dial out

  Yasuichi Kitamura (At-Large): (05:58) yes

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (05:58) Yes, we hear you!

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (05:59) ok, because I hear nothing

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (05:59) i can hear

  Brenda Brewer: (05:59) Hello Eberhard!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:59) DIAL Out?

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:00) I am using the SIP via the UK number, so I always need to check of ot works. WHich it nvariably does :-)-O

  Brenda Brewer: (06:01) One moment for Cheryl please.  We are calling out to her

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:07) Sorry for the muck up  on the beggining of the call  I was dialing in as oporator was dialing out  MUCH confusion

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:08) anf Thanks  for the mark up work  @Sam

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:09) makes sense

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:12) TReview of Reserve Fund is good Corp Governance  but it is not mandatory

  Samantha Eisner: (06:22) No objections to a formal transmittal once it's approved by the CCWG

  Samantha Eisner: (06:25) If that path is cleared through the chairs, I'm supportive of Cheryl's suggestion of a reference to teh publicly available document

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:26) I can not hear enough

  Brenda Brewer: (06:26) Jonathan can you please speak louder

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:27) they belong to them, not us ultimately

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:27) yes

  Edward Morris: (06:34) It makes sense to give CWG a heads up as to what we are doing.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:36) yes! especially on THEIR stuff

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:36) Do we know whether the CWG or IWG are doing their own stress tests?

  Samantha Eisner: (06:37) Are Keith or Kavouss on our mailing list?

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:37) both

  Samantha Eisner: (06:37) Sorry, 4 am brain thinking - they're ICG liaisons, not CWG

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:39) NP  @Samm I understand 0400 ICANN meeting *very well indeed*

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (06:54) we are talking about both internal security and SSR if it impacts compromise of credentials

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (06:56) Internal Security are EXTREMELY important with regards to confidence in the ability of an entity to perform a function.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:13) As regards Stress Test 21, this is as well a very sensitive issue for the GAC. Hence I would defer to the latest GAC communiqué from Singapour 2015 that deals with the FOIWG outcome.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:14) Sorry my mike is not working so I am making my point via written form here

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:14) And I ask for this to be on the record

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:15) Thanbk Yiou  Rafael

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:15) Yes  OUR  Chast IS part of the formasl record and is publically recorded ( tyopois and all ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:15) typos *sigh*

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:16) Thank you very much Cheryl ;)

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:16) Excerpt from the GAC communiqué: The GAC notes the work of the ccNSO FOIWG, and its efforts to provide interpretive clarity to RFC1591. The GAC welcomes the FOIWG’s recognition that, consistent with the GAC’s 2005 Principles, the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government. As such, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government.

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC): (07:17) And I stress: the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government.

  Wisdom Donkor: (07:17) Assessment of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing system, ICANN must act with the best interests of the public in mind at all time, while being accountable to all stakeholders and not simply the most influential or active constituencies. There is the need to balance accountability to any particular stakeholder group against ICANN’s central responsibility to function as the steward of a vital and shared global resource, which is the domain name system.

  Wisdom Donkor: (07:18) Assessment of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing system, ICANN must act with the best interests of the public in mind at all time, while being accountable to all stakeholders and not simply the most influential or active constituencies. There is the need to balance accountability to any particular stakeholder group against ICANN’s central responsibility to function as the steward of a vital and shared global resource, which is the domain name system.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:20) Public Policy issues relating to ccTLDs relate to ccTLDs not to ICANN.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:23) And, a GAC Communique is a GAC Communique. Not policy.

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:23) Nevermind that GAC had several very senior participants on the FoiWg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:24) a GAC Communique *IS* of course formal GAC Advice 

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:25) Wisdom, that double boilerplate does not safeguard the exisiting rights protected by even the GAC principles.

  Samantha Eisner: (07:29) I have a hard stop as well at the top of the hour

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:31) I'll intoduce this corporate lingo into Namlish: "hard Stop at the top of the hour" :-)-O

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:32) I just have a patient scheduled then :-)-O

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:32) this time is fine

  Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager]: (07:34) same time is fine with me

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:34) Good discussion, everyone. 

  Markus Kummer: (07:34) Well done -- good discussion! Thanks an d bye!

  Pär Brumark (GAC): (07:36) Thx!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:36) Bye  for now   THANK you all :)