[Ssr2-review] [EXT] Re: ACTION NEEDED: Input to SO/AC response note
jaberamatogoro at gmail.com
jaberamatogoro at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 16:36:07 UTC 2017
As I expressed my feeling that I was not in support of the wording in our reply. BUT I would let it go as it is. I don't see any strong message being carried with these wording rather our intention was to acknowledge the receipts of their statement, worked on skill set assessment to be completed next week and submit the completed work plan for their input before unpausing the process. As I have been repeating over the week, without specific scope guideline from the community we are creating a room for ICANN Staff and ICANN Board to reject some of the scoping from RT as it has been before this “pause”. Let us give SO/AC the current scope and if possible put their input on the current scope to have a final scope. I am also forecasting the same in our recommendations during the final report if this is not carefully handled.
I will try my best to rephrase my statement on Sunday as share back. I a very worst scenario we can vote supporting these wording.
Sent from Windows Mail
From: kabarrett at oas.org
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 7:25 PM
To: gih at apnic.net
Cc: SSR2 Review Team Email List
No prob Geoff. If changes aren’t accepted I will still support the submission of the draft text as is.
The only ones I would ask you to reconsider are the following. Rationale is to let it be a bit more precise as to our reasoning when we developed the work plan.
> We would like to offer some general clarifications and comments about the choices in an overview on the overarching tenets that was adopted and guided the approach to the development of the 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 in such a review, that it is more helpful to look at breadth and look at the broader aspects of security, stability and resiliency rather than dive into depth in just a small number of issues. This approach we believe would lend itself to more informed conclusions that can be contextualized.
Cyber Security Policy Specialist
Inter-American Committee against Terrorism
Secretariat for Multidimensional Security
Organization of American States
1889 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
kabarrett at oas.org
Register to our distribution list here!
From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at apnic.net]
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett at oas.org>
Cc: ssr2-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] [EXT] Re: ACTION NEEDED: Input to SO/AC response note
I oppose these proposed changes. As it stands, its a simple note carrying a very simple message, expressed simply, and I for one don’t see a pressing need for more adjectives here.
> On 3 Nov 2017, at 7:01 pm, Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett at oas.org> wrote:
> Dear Team
> Thank you for the dedicated work and please see some suggestions below to the language in red (which does not affect the essence of what was intended to be conveyed). Please feel free to accept or reject suggestions.
> Kerry-Ann Barrett
> Cyber Security Policy Specialist
> Inter-American Committee against Terrorism Secretariat for
> Multidimensional Security Organization of American States
> 1889 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 T. 202-370-4675 F.
> 202-458-3857 kabarrett at oas.org www.oas.org/cyber Register to our
> distribution list here!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Boban Krsic
> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:31 AM
> To: ssr2-review at icann.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] ACTION NEEDED: Input to SO/AC
> response note
> Hi Folks,
> I have no comments or additions - it looks good to me.
> Thanks and many greetings to Abu Dhabi.
> - Boban.
> Am 03.11.17 um 12:32 schrieb Jennifer Bryce:
> > 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<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64076120/SSR2-TermsofReference-CLEAN%20v4.0%20ET.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1493887766000&api=v2> 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 an overview on the overarching tenets that was adopted and guided the approach to the development of the 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 in such a review, that it is more helpful to look at breadth and look at the broader aspects of security, stability and resiliency rather than dive into depth in just a small number of issues. This approach we believe would lend itself to more informed conclusions that can be contextualized. We have operated as a team that while we may review a plethora of documents, we have a fiduciary responsibility to the Community –at-Large to contribute to the stability of ICANN through sound conclusions and recommendations.
> > 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. In this context, our review will also include future threats for consideration and proactive planning .
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ssr2-review