Content Comparison

Transcript

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #5 29 April.doc

Transcript Stress Tests WP Meeting #5 29 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5mgfpu4wth/

The audio recording is available here:  

Agenda

1. Take a look at red text (p 11 and 16)

2. Address Mathieu's edits

3. Consider adding management abstract paragraph

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-stress-tests-29apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Take a look at red text (p 11 and 16)

2. Address Mathieu's edits

3. Consider adding management abstract paragraph

4. To help manage public comment process, do it yourself guide to prevent additional stress-tests being added 

Notes

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

1 Review red text

Red text on p 11 and 16 - Proposed measure to except ICANN from exceeding mission

Proposed mission statement could be standard of review

It would take reconsideration or IRP to trigger it.

AGREEMENT - New text to be added quoting standard of review 

2 Address Mathieu's edits (blue text)

- P3 Stress Test # 9 

Spilling Board would be a potential accountability mechanism but never regarded as useful one i.e. last resort

AGREEMENT - OK with proposed text 

- p4 Stress Test #11

Suggestions to remove "mitigation", to use risk mitigation measures", to remove "preventive"

AGREEMENT - risk mitigation

-p7 Stress Test #21

AGREEMENT Ok with following edit "develop appropriate mechanism

- p12 Stress test #13

Standing is available to community. 

Is term "appeal" appropriate? 

Suggestion to use reconsideration and IRPs

We have not identified different standards of review 

--> Discourage different standards

--> Would not recommend putting standards of review in WS1 work

- Suggestion to remove sentence: standards of review may need to be ajdusted sentene and to include Mathieu's text

- WS1 - WS2 or future Review panels?

AGREEMENT - Remove sentence: standards of review may need to be ajdusted sentene and to include Mathieu's text. 

Frivolous and vexatious: match with what is in the  proposal --> frivolous and abusive 

Conclusion cell

Suggested text: Proposed measures would reduce risk by supermajority requirements and by dismissla of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

Individual will have standing but expectation that people use it in way that is accountable to community 

- Proposal: Proposed measures would could increase risk of individuals paralyzing ICANN processes, which is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

- Suggestion to use "overload" 

--> Continued usage may paralyze business, not just overload it 

--> Improperly impede/interfere

AGREEMENT - Remove overload and use impede - Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to impede ICANN processes, though this is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

3.  Consider adding management abstract paragraph

ACTION ITEM - Steve to draft paragraph that takes up three or four points that Mathieu identified 

4.  To help manage public comment process, do it yourself guide to prevent additional stress-tests being added 

Do it yourself to guide current proposed and measures making it clear that community powers we are designing can not prevent external threat (hacker, earthquake etc). 

Suggestion to give example of specific concerns and show how that gets translated using buckets we have

ACTION - Steve to provide DIY text 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Steve to draft paragraph that takes up three or four points that Mathieu identified 

ACTION - Steve to provide DIY text 

Documents Presented

Applying Stress Tests Draft v10 2-MW.pdf

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (4/29/2015 05:36) Welcome to the Stress Tests Working Party Meeting # 5 on 29 April at 11:00 UTC!  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

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (05:57) Hi !

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (05:58) Hi all...

  Brenda Brewer: (06:05) None

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:06) works for me @Steve    nithing wring with a speedy meeting... :-)

  Rudi Daniel: (06:10) Good Morning all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:10) Hi Rudi

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:13) I can read

  Avri Doria: (06:15) if we are going to include the spilling the board might as well include the long arm of the law.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:15) that's middle column!

  Rudi Daniel: (06:15) I would have no objection adding the blue text

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:16) The text is fine!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:16) since we're talking about corruption, should we add "behanding" as an accountability mechanism that  is not "nuclear"

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:18) "risk mitigation?"

  Avri Doria: (06:19) further mitigation

  Rudi Daniel: (06:19) remove preventative ?  does not make sense to me??

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:20) WS2 suggestions might provide risk mitigation measures

  Rudi Daniel: (06:20) OK....risk miti...yes

  Avri Doria: (06:20) checking the dictionary i see that mitigation can be anticipatory

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (06:21) you didn't BELIEVE me?!

  Avri Doria: (06:21) don't know, it is a american one.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:21) :-)

  Avri Doria: (06:21) nor would the ccTLD manager wnat us to.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:24) indeed @Avri :-)

  Samantha Eisner: (06:26) Reconsideration and IRPs

  Samantha Eisner: (06:26) Agree Steve

  Rudi Daniel: (06:26) agree

  Rudi Daniel: (06:31) diff. standards would seem to be a orob

  Rudi Daniel: (06:31) prob. statement.....

  Samantha Eisner: (06:33) Is it WS2 or WS2 or future ATRT reviews?

  Avri Doria: (06:33) good point Sam

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:34) good point  Sam  it could be WS2 and future Review Panels  may need to consider future 'Standards of Review'...

  Rudi Daniel: (06:35) ahh. I agree completely with you....

  Avri Doria: (06:38) well frivolous and vexatious are different

  Avri Doria: (06:39) and the dictionary say that vexatious is a trending word for defintion searches

  Rudi Daniel: (06:42) :)

  Alice Jansen: (06:43) no abusive in Reconsideration language, frivolous only

  Avri Doria: (06:44) page?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (06:45) Nited Alice, but I do not think that limits us where we are effectivly refering to both Recoins and IRPs that in the edit  text we  mentioning  both 'frivolous and abusive'

  Alice Jansen: (06:45) frivolous and abusive p 45 of v4.2

  Avri Doria: (06:45) Alice, thanks.

  Alice Jansen: (06:45) frivolous p 46 ( no abusive)

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:46) Proposed measures would reduce risk by supermajority requirements and by dismissla of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Rudi Daniel: (06:48) (by super majority requirements)....no sure I comprehend  that

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:50) Proposed measures would could increase risk of individuals paralyzing ICANN processes, which is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Rudi Daniel: (06:52) S.....

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:53) Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to affect ICANN processes, which is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:54) Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to block ICANN processes, which is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:55) Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to overload ICANN processes, though this is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Samantha Eisner: (06:57) improperly impede

  Samantha Eisner: (06:58) "improperly impede or interfere"

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]: (06:59) Improved access to review and redress could allow indivdual to impede ICANN processes, though this is mitigated by dismissal of frivolous or abusive RR and IRPs

  Rudi Daniel: (07:00) yup....OK

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:05) +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:06) Yes  I also suppoirt this way forward  and again  beleive it needs to go up front of the section...

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:07) Personally, I love the overarching language about "accountability" versus absolute prevention. The idea of a DIY sound condescending and realy redundant. Hard to say something new.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:08) so can we again    discuss this as proposed Text  (steve can own the AI  to prep the starting text)   online   and then we can sign off on both  in next weeks call then...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:08) Well we would not  describe it as a DIY...  Jonathan

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:09) that's the source of the dictionary checking...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (07:09) LOL

  Alice Jansen: (07:10) 05 UTC

  Rudi Daniel: (07:11) good...the

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (07:11) Thx!