<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="+2"><font face="Lucida Grande">1. I think this
discussion is very valuable. When Patrik has said, "we have
this document, go read it", I have done so and found them to be
excellent resources. We should explore ways to support greater
use of and understanding of their work, certainly.<br>
2. A formal liaison would be useful to keep their workplans and
priorities on our radar, and vice verse.<br>
3. Advance planning for SSAC briefings, including suggested
reading on their side, and a list of questions on our side
would make the briefings more relevant. Then we could have a
richer discussion.<br>
4. I think we should formalize a kind of SSAC review when we
develop the PDP charters. Consultation at that stage would
ensure that relevant SSAC existing work. or future security
concerns, could be flagged. For instance, in the RDS PDP David
mentioned, in my view the EWG report should be read with the
SSAC comments on the EWG draft in hand. Certainly we have
several members of SSAC on the RDS pdp, but sometimes these
things are hit and miss, a formal review could be helpful to
ensure coverage, and a liaison would also be useful to help SSAC
anticipate new work we are needing help on.<br>
In short, all four of your bullets are great in my view.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
</font></font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-22 16:53, James M. Bladel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D33FF961.BBF6E%25jbladel@godaddy.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Council Colleagues -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Continuing with the “spring cleaning” of our Action Item
list, here’s another item that has been in a pending state for
quite some time. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yesterday I was able to meet with Patrik (Chairs, SSAC) to
discuss ideas to strengthen coordination between our two
organizations, up to and including a formal exchange of
liaisons. As we’ve noted previously, the SSAC’s rules require
that any of its members (including a potential liaison) would
need to meet the general membership requirements, which include
a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Patrik and I also discussed alternatives to a formal liaison
that would keep the two groups mutually informed. We both agreed
that the standard SSAC presentation/Q&A sessions at ICANN
meetings had limited value, and we should revise the format to
specifically address topics where either or both sides had
specific questions or asks. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Furthermore, Patrik noted that some PDPs could benefit from
existing or planned SSAC research, and we should reinforce the
availability of the SSAC as a resource for new PDPs. We also
observed that there is significant membership overlap between
some individuals and groups, and that this should be leveraged
to enhance cooperation. Finally, ICANN Staff can help
facilitate communication between the GNSO (Council & PDPs)
and SSAC, if they flag topics that have potentially shared
interests, and raise this with leadership of all groups.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Possible action items / paths forward:</div>
<ol>
<li>Continue to pursue formal exchange of liaisons between the
GNSO & SSAC, noting the constraints listed above.</li>
<li>Modify the SSAC/GNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to be a more
free-flowing conversation about topics that share mutual
interests.</li>
<li>Encourage PDPs and other GNSO groups to consider the utility
& applicability of SSAC research in their work.</li>
<li>Ask Staff to help facilitate information exchange between
the two groups.</li>
</ol>
<div>I look forward to your thoughts & comments on this
subject.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks—</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>J.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>