[lac-discuss-en] ICANN's risk management

Sun Jan 25 00:25:37 UTC 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: ICANN's risk management 
 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com

 Humberto, Alejandro, 

 To contribute to this activity proposed by Alexander, who seems 
 a very good initiative, accompanying table risks to ICANN 
 as a company and have been included in the document I enviAlejandro, 
 with each tems in two versions: espaol inglsy. 
 As to the list of discussion in English do not get documents 
 attachments, I copy below the same content as in Table I estincluido 
 attached. 
 Please check for sb error in translation. 

 Best regards, 
 Fatima Cambronero 

 * Enterprise-Wide Risks ICANN list * 

 1) Failure to Maintain and adhere to it adequately Existing accountability 
 -mechanisms. 

 Failure to properly maintain and adhere to the mechanisms of rendicin 
 existing accounts. 

 2) Failure to Demonstrate accountability and transparency of Sufficient 
 organization. 

 Failure to demonstrate sufficient accountability and transparency 
 organization. 

 3) Lower than forecasted revenues. 

 Lower revenues than expected. 

 4) Adverse legal or other dispute resolution ruling, treats including possible 
 related penalties, fees and costs. 

 -Resolution court or other adverse resolution of disputes, including 
 any penalties, fees and related costs. 

 5) Failure to sufficiently It manage and enforce THE HUNDREDS of Contracts 
 With TLD operators. 

 Failure to manage and enforce sufficiently, hundreds of 
 contracts with TLD operators. 

 6) Unsuccessful delivery of a stakeholder Proposal and other Relevant 
 NTIA deliverables for a Successful transition stewardship of the IANA 
 Functions.

 Delivery unsuccessfully a proposal from stakeholders and other 
 relevant deliverables for a successful transition from the NTIA 
 supervision of the IANA functions. 

 7) Significant financial loss, other than lower-than-anticipated revenues 
 (Eg, fraud, investment loss, etc.). 

 Significant financial losses, with exception of the most revenue 
 low expected (for example, fraud, loss of investment, etc.). 

 8) Potential for New gTLD Program issues related to accountability 
 -mechanisms due to possible adverse decision or failure of 
 mechanism / process. 

 Possible problems for the New gTLD Program related 
 accountability mechanisms due to possible adverse decision or 
 failure mechanism / process. 

 9) Unfunded operational costs or unplanned expenses. 

 Operational costs without financiacino unplanned expenses. 

 10) That perception Potential Conflicts of Interests not all are Identified 
 During decision-making process. 

 Perception that not all potential conflicts of interest are 
 identified during the process of decision making. 

 11) Possible That perception ICANN has poor overall engagement, 
 transparency, policy, coordination and communication. 

 Possible perception that ICANN has global commitment, transparency, 
 politics, poor communication coordinaciny. 

 12) Significant Increase in legal filings or other dispute resolution That 
 Could staff capacity challenge, distract and disrupt operations leadership. 

 Significant increase in the records of judgments or other 
 type of resolution of disputes will be able to be a challenge for the capacity 
 Staff, distract leaders and disrupt operations. 

 13) Policy development process is too slow or ineffective, participants 
 decrease or stagnate, or failure to bring new stakeholders into the model. 

 The process of developing policies is too slow, participants 
 decline or stagnate, or inability to attract new players 
 stakeholders within the model. 

 14) Potential legal actions from parties believe That That They Have Been 
 RESULTING injured from New gTLD Program. 

 Potential legal action from parties who believe they have been daadas 
 as a result of the New gTLD Program. 

 15) Significant revenue reduction (eg, reduced volume domain name, 
 ccTLD contributions Issue reduced, reduced registration fees, etc.). 

 Significant reduction of income (eg reduced volume 
 reduced domain name ccTLD reduced contributions, fees 
 recorders, etc.). 

 16) Perception of failure and help in Place to Achieve a global 
 IG distributed multi-stakeholder ecosystem según the Widely accepted 
 Principles World Net. 

 Perceptions lack of implementaciny helps to achieve an ecosystem 
 Distributed Internet Governance of multiple stakeholders 
 According to widely accepted principles NetMundial. 

 17) Possibility That current supporting organization and advisory committee 
 (SO / AC) structures can not scale to support comprehensive and include new entrants 
 and participants. 

 Possibility that current support organizations and committee 
 advisors (SO / AC) can not scale to include and support new 
 global players. 

 18) Unsuccessful Implementation of ADOPTED RESULTING recommendation from 
 various Affirmation of Commitment reviews. 

 Implementacin unsuccessfully for the recommendation adopted as a result of 
 revisions to the affirmation of commitments. 

 19) Insufficient progress Project Implementation Towards major (eg, gTLDs, 
 IDN fast track, DNSSEC, etc.). 

 Insufficient progress towards implementacin major projects (for 
 example, gTLD, IDN Fast Track, DNSSEC, etc.). 

 20) Inability to deliver Commitments (mission, operational objectives To, 
 Strategic Initiatives) due to limited resources, budget, or prioritization. 

 Inability to meet commitments (mission, operational objectives, 
 estratgicas) initiatives due to limited resources, budget or 
 prioritization. 

 21) Key skills depart ICANN (consultants or staff) without clear succession 
 plan for continuation of operating functions or exchange of knowledge and 
 documentation. 

 Key Skills arise from ICANN (consultants or staff) without a plan 
 clear succession to the continuation of operational functions or 
 exchange of knowledge and documentation. 

 22) Lack of Improving trust in the multi-stakeholder model. 

 Lack of improving confidence in the model of multiple parts 
 interested. 

 23) Contracted party non-payment or non-performance service provider (eg, 
 register, registry, and vendors). 

 Failure to pay the contracted party or breach of provider 
 services (eg, recorder, recording and suppliers). 

 24) Failure to Effectively Facilitate international participation in DNS 
 Technical Coordination in the event of significant Internet security, 
 stability or resiliency incident. 

 Failure to effectively facilitate international participation in the 
 Technique coordination of the DNS to events of significant incidents to the 
 security, stability and resilience of the Internet. 

 25) DNS vulnerability to attacks (root) Causing disruption to Internet 
 operability (DDoS Attacks, Cache Poisoning, etc.).

 Vulnerability to attack DNS (root) causing the interruption of the 
 operation of the Internet (DDoS Attacks, Cache Poisoning, etc.). 

 26) Potential breach of personnel confidential data or data from ICANN 
 systems; confidential data made public. 

 Violation potential personal or confidential data from systems 
 ICANN; confidential data pblicos facts. 

 27) Failure of the community accountability process to address it adequately 
 ICANN accountability in light of changing historical relationship STI With 
 the USG. 

 Failure of the process of accountability to the community to address 
 properly the accountability of ICANN in the light of changing its 
 histrica relationship with the US government. 

 28) Ineffective contractual compliance approach, process, and audits 
 (Registries, registrars, others). 

 Ineffective approach to contractual compliance, process and 
 audit (registries, registrars, etc.).

 29) Inconsistent communication and messaging to stakeholders, leading to 
 falta de confusion and understanding. 

 Communication and inconsistent messenger to stakeholders, 
 leading to confusion and misunderstanding. 

 30) Poor Fiscal policy-making or gross mis-management. 

 Working out of a poor fiscal policy or bad administration. 

 31) Potential for ineffective technical business continuity management 
 Given an event OCCURS (eg, data back-up, disaster recover planning, data 
 outage, etc.). 

 Technics management of business continuity potentially ineffective against 
 the occurrence of an event (eg, data backup, 
 disaster recovery planning, cutting data, etc.). 

 32) Potential falta de operational efficiency, excellence and discipline due 
 to falta de internal collaboration and Clearly defined roles and 
 responsabilidades. 

 Lack of potential operational efficiency, excellence and discipline 
 due to the lack of internal collaboration and the roles and 
 clearly defined responsibilities. 

 33) One or more Governments' policy Changes That Negatively Affect 
 the industries of a stakeholder different regional or work and current 
 functionality of SO / AC model. 

 Changes in government policies oms one that adversely affect 
 different sectors of a stakeholder group or regional labor and 
 Current functionality of the model SO / AC. 

 ----------- 

 On January 24, 2015, 18:54, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
 i wrote: 

> Humberto,
>
> o pedir el apoyo de voluntarios/as.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> 2015-01-24 15:45 GMT-06:00 Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob at gmail.com>:
>
> > Alejandro,
> >
> > Es posible crear esta encuesta, pero tomara algunos días para lanzarla.
> La
> > encuesta debe hacerse en ambos idiomas lo que implica traducir al
> español.
> >
> > Saludos
> >
> >
> > Enviado desde mi iPad
> >
> > > El 24/01/2015, a las 21:35, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
> > escribió:
> > >
> > > Alberto,
> > >
> > > gracias por adoptar esta iniciativa. En abono de tu oferta, anexo el
> > > documento en que ya he convertido pdf a rtf, rtf a docx, y texto a
> tabla.
> > > Lo comparto con todos/as por si alguien ofrece apoyarlos a ti y a
> > Humberto
> > > con la creación de la encuesta.
> > >
> > > En cuanto a la muy buena propuesta de Fátima, quizás sea útil que los
> > > colegas del Caribe organicen una discusión interna y a través de un
> > vocero
> > > comuniquen el resultado y puedan integrarlo con lo que entre todos
> > > determinemos. Por supuesto que creo que Roosevelt King sería una
> > > contraparte para ello, ya que ha demostrado tener tiempo y energía
> > > suficientes para participar.
> > >
> > > Alejandro Pisanty
> > >
> > > 2015-01-24 15:16 GMT-06:00 Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>:
> > >
> > >> Alejandro, muy buena idea. También leí algo hoy sobre el trabajo del
> > IETF
> > >> (calificado como no suficiente) respecto de uno de los riesgos que es
> > >> seguridad DNSs. Y los ataques sobre ese sistema. Es factible separar
> > estos
> > >> riesgos para preparar la encuesta.
> > >>
> > >> Si bien no hay méritos en trabajar o sugerir cosas buenas para
> trabajar,
> > >> de haberlos, serían tuyos.
> > >>
> > >> Me pongo a trabajar y ver qué herramientas podemos utilizar. Esperemos
> > que
> > >> todos colabores luego. La encuesta sobre capacidades de nuestra
> Región,
> > >> está casi en el 50% de nuestra organizaciones.
> > >>
> > >> Saludos cordiales
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alberto soto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *De:* Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
> > >> *Enviado el:* sábado, 24 de enero de 2015 05:48 p.m.
> > >> *Para:* Alberto Soto
> > >> *CC:* LACRALO Español
> > >> *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-es] ICANN's risk management
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alberto,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> he leído con cuidado este documento.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Si quisiéramos ser proactivos y producir al menos un sondeo de opinión
> > es
> > >> fácil producir una versón en doc o xls de este documento y aislar como
> > >> tabla la lista de riesgos; hecho eso, crear una encuesta de
> > surveymonkey o
> > >> una herramienta que tenga licenciada ICANN para calificar prioridades.
> > >> Típicamente sería una iniciativa de la Presidencia o la Secretaría. Yo
> > con
> > >> gusto hago parte del trabajo técnico si tú y Humberto toman la
> > iniciativa.
> > >> Apelaría a que tú hagas una división de las preguntas por los tipos de
> > >> riesgo a que corresponden ya que están mezclados. Esta herramienta
> > simple
> > >> ayudaría a la participación de todas las subregiones.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alejandro Pisanty
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2015-01-24 8:04 GMT-06:00 Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org>:
> > >>
> > >> Estimados, el Board Risk Committee comparte este documento con el CCWG
> > >> Accountability:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process-
> > >> 23jan15-en.pdf
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Saludos cordiales
> > >>
> > >> Alberto Soto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> > >> busca de virus.
> > >> http://www.avast.com
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> > >> lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
> > >>
> > >> http://www.lacralo.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> > >> Facultad de Química UNAM
> > >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> > >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> > >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> > >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> > >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> > >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> > >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> > >> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >>   <http://www.avast.com/>
> > >>
> > >> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> > >> busca de virus.
> > >> www.avast.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> > > Facultad de Química UNAM
> > > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> > > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> > > <ICANN_summary-risk-management-process-23jan15-en_APB.docx>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lac-discuss-es mailing list
> > > lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
> > >
> > > http://www.lacralo.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
>

 * Fatima Cambronero * 
 Attorney-Argentina 

 Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 
 Twitter:facambronero 
 Skype: fatima.cambronero 

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/d3a6ad5687.html
--]]