Fwd: [Accountability-dt] For your review - notes & action items and updated version of charter

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,


>
> We did not get very far into what these would be.   I think it will be a
> topic for our next meeting on Thrusday.    One of the notions (from the
> notes of these meeting)
>
> Stress test - proposals that demonstrate on paper how they would resist
> 'stress' (capture, financial crisis) - incl. list of nightmare scenarios.
> What are the stresses that were tested and how the various mechanisms enable
> ICANN survive these 'stresses'.
>
>
> I would expect that any test include an expected result to be sure that is
passed or failed : that will be the post-conditions to be met
scenarios are just examples (but definitely we cannot cover all possible
scenarios or black swan cases) and so it may go into the optimistic cases
only.

for surviving the stresses, I am wondering if that means working on
recovery mechanisms?

A question, are these something that the charter DT should develop or would
> that be a task for the WG?   another question we have, do these need to be
> run before the transition of just defined before the transition.  I tend to
> think run, but it is a question that came up.
>

I guess that we should give the working group develop that part and explore
it. since we are in software engineering metaphors ,  probably we should
follow agile process, creating tests before even designing or implementing
the solution.
I guess the tests should be run the transition, after the transition it
will be just "regression tests"

to be honest I am just wondering if we can really cover all cases (someone
in QA world know that is impossible) and how we can simulate those kind of
tests, the accountability is for sure not a piece of software.

Rafik

>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 29-Oct-14 20:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> thanks for sharing this update. skimming the draft, I saw that "stress
> test" are included in deliverables . did the draft team agree on defining
> what is a stress test? the term is becoming a mantra but I am not sure if
> everybody has the same understanding. I would think that a stress test is
> aimed check the limit of the organization but regarding the survival (or
> recovery) I would think that is resiliency criteria which is quite
> different.
> I also see that different solutions will be gathered from existing public
> comments, any expectation that some best practices or mechanisms to be
> inspired from other organizations or experiences?
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-10-28 15:12 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org>:
>
>
>   hi,
>
> not complete but getting there.
> please review the charter and comment.
>
> especially interested in comments on deliverables.
> but on anything.
>
> avri
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: [Accountability-dt] For your
> review - notes & action items and updated version of charter  Date: Mon,
> 27 Oct 2014 20:29:08 +0000  From: Marika Konings<marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>  To:accountability-dt at icann.org <accountability-dt at icann.org> <accountability-dt at icann.org><accountability-dt at icann.org> <accountability-dt at icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today¹s meeting as well as
> attached the latest version of the charter which incorporates the changes
> discussed during today¹s meeting.
>
> As a reminder, the action items are as follows:
> * Mathieu to draft language to update problem statement - need to close gap
> in accountability (trust of stakeholders in current accountability
> mechanisms - not deemed sufficient, part of which needs to be addressed
> prior to transition, part of which can be done after. Expand in goals
> section what the CWG is expected to achieve. Following that, Mathieu will
> review other parts of the document to make sure these align (including work
> stream 1 and 2 descriptions)
> * Staff to collate Larry Stricklyn's & Fadi's statements/comments from
> recent speeches related to this effort
> * DT members to review issues collated in public comment period and phrase
> those into questions that can be included for each work stream - Keith
> volunteered to work with RySG to develop a first list of questions for DT
> review. Matthew volunteered to assist with this as well.
> * Avri to review deliverables section and suggest additional edits based on
> comments received, if needed
> * Update draft language in working relationship with CCWG and ICG to reflect
> comments received (done)
> * Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 October at 13.00 UTC
> Please use the attached version for any further edits / comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
> Notes and Action Items ­ DT meeting of 27 October
>
> Reminder of target date for delivery of charter: 3 November 2014
>
> Recap of changes made to Charter since last meeting:
> * Latest version includes most up to date changes (including Matthew Keith,
> and David today)
> * Edits to fix some left over references to ICG where no longer appropriate
> as well as updates to reflect that more than one proposal may be submitted
> by the ICG as the two work streams are likely to be completed along
> different timelines
> * SOI clarification
> * Clarification about ATRT role in concensus calls
> Review of charter:
> * Include definition of the term "accountability" in the Charter (from
> NETmundial Statement): "Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and
> balances as well asfor review and redress should exist."
> Question concerning scope:
> * What is demarcation between WS1 and WS2?
> * Focus on pre-transition vs. post-transition accountability as opposed to
> IANA vs. non-IANA?
> * The reference  to IANA Functions accountability is being dealt with by the
> other CCWG. This group should be focused on accountability reforms made
> necessary by NTIA's disengagement from its legacy role.
> * ICANN's accountability to the community as a whole may need to be
> reflected in the charter - is there a conflict between currently proposed
> definitions of work streams & scope?
> * NTIA oversight created accountability across ICANN - how to recreate that
> general accountability mechanism prior to any transition.
> * Everything should be on the table for consideration - up to the CCWG to
> determine what should be done before transition and what can wait until
> after.
> * Recommendations coming out of work stream 1 are expected to provide a path
> for work going on in work stream 2. Process for addressing anything coming
> up in work stream 2 is one of the objectives of work stream 1.
> * Transition of role of US Government is at the heart of the work of the
> CCWG and also dictates timeline / sense of urgency - if scope is too wide it
> risks the effort to get lost
> * See challenges identified by Larry Strickling in his speech
> * Stress test one of the key deliverables of CCWG
> DT Agreements;
> * Delineation between work stream 1 and 2 should be pre and post transition
> * Charter should not limit accountability mechanisms or functions affected
> as part of the CCWG work
> Deliverables, timeframes & reporting
> * Proposed edits from Avri (see document circulated)
> * Two additions proposed: 1) when solutions are proposed, deliverables need
> to include stress test, scenarios to demonstrate that the solutions are
> resistent to capture / stress; 2) after assessing current situation,
> priorities need to be identified - what is required before transition and
> what can wait until after (big impact vs. limited impact) (Avri tried to
> capture these as part of her edits which will be shared with the DT shortly)
> * Do stress tests need to be defined or conducted prior to transition? At
> least for stream 1, this should be a requirement to be conducted in theory.
> For work stream 2, may not be required, or at least not in the short run.
> * Stress test - proposals that demonstrate on paper how they would resist
> 'stress' (capture, financial crisis) - incl. list of nightmare scenarios.
> What are the stresses that were tested and how the various mechanisms enable
> ICANN survive these 'stresses'.
> Membership
> * Include as a for example, the link to criteria identified for the
> community working group (seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-
> 22-en#12 <http://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12>)
> Working relationship with ICG / IANA Stewardship CWG
> * Consider including reference to regular meetings between chairs
> * Clarify the role of the board (not related to co-ordination, but to final
> approval of proposals) - include link to board resolution
> * Review this section and consider clarifying
> * Main focus should be on IANA Stewardship Transition CWG as ICG just has a
> co-ordinating role
> Expert Advisors
> * Section captures comments provided by Mathieu
> Action item:
> * Mathieu to draft language to update problem statement - need to close gap
> in accountability (trust of stakeholders in current accountability
> mechanisms - not deemed sufficient, part of which needs to be addressed
> prior to transition, part of which can be done after. Expand in goals
> section what the CWG is expected to achieve. Following that, Mathieu will
> review other parts of the document to make sure these align (including work
> stream 1 and 2 descriptions)
> * Staff to collate Larry Stricklyn's & Fadi's statements/comments from
> recent speeches related to this effort
> * DT members to review issues collated in public comment period and phrase
> those into questions that can be included for each work stream - Keith
> volunteered to work with RySG to develop a first list of questions for DT
> review. Matthew volunteered to assist with this as well.
> * Avri to review deliverables section and suggest additional edits based on
> comments received, if needed
> * Update draft language in working relationship with CCWG and ICG to reflect
> comments received
> * Next meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 30 October at 13.00 UTC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141029/bd5b76e5/attachment.htm>