[Ssr2-review] ACTION NEEDED: Input to SO/AC response note

Don Blumenthal dmb at donblumenthal.com
Fri Nov 3 13:29:28 UTC 2017


Same here, except something is missing in the first line. I can see a few
ways to fix it but will suggest adding “of.”  Perspective of the scope.

Don

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:04 AM Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m good with the note as is
>
> Geoff
>
> > On 3 Nov 2017, at 3:32 pm, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce at icann.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The below draft note to SO/AC Chairs was developed by the RT members
> during the F2F meeting today. Please read, and share any edits or input by
> 23.59 UTC on Sunday 5 November.
> >
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > Dear SO/AC Chairs;
> >
> > Please find enclosed a description of the SSR2 Review Team’s perspective
> the Scope of this review.  As requested, the SSR2 is completing requested
> item to “[resolve] the issues identified and discussed before and during
> ICANN60 related to scope”.
> >
> > Scope
> > The SSR2 RT has operated and conducted its work according to its adopted
> scope (detailed in its Terms of Reference document), which was adopted by
> consensus of the SSR RT on 4 May 2017.
> >
> > We would like to offer some general clarifications and comments about
> the choices in the approach to scope that we hope will be helpful to the SO
> and AC chairs in considering the parameters associated with resuming this
> effort:
> >
> > Breadth vs. Depth: We believe that it is more helpful to look at breadth
> in such a review, and look at the broader aspects of security, stability
> and resiliency rather than dive into depth in just a small number of issues.
> >
> > Capability vs. Behaviours: We believe that it is more helpful in the
> context of this review to look at the capability of ICANN to manage issues
> related to security, stability and resilience rather than being overly
> prescriptive as to how ICANN should respond to particular circumstances
> that have arisen in the past or may arise in the future.
> >
> > Perspective vs. Prescription: We believe that it is more helpful to
> review aspects of institutional awareness and capability of topics related
> to security, stability, and resiliency, rather than provide a detailed
> prescription of the appropriate responses to be used in particular cases.
> >
> > We hope this meets your requirements regarding the review team’s
> perspective on the scope of this review. The current working terms of
> references for the review team’s efforts up to the point of this pause in
> our actions, including a detailed view of the scope of the review, can be
> found in the reference document cited above.
> >
> > Please let us know if you require anything further.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > The Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2 RT)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jennifer Bryce
> > Senior Reviews Coordinator
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >
> > Email: jennifer.bryce at icann.org
> > Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann
> > www.icann.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ssr2-review mailing list
> > Ssr2-review at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20171103/653a6351/attachment.html>


More information about the Ssr2-review mailing list