[Ssr2-review] SSR2 scope google document

[Norm Ritchie]

I’ve made the minor edits to correct the grammar in the opening paragraph as noted by Don in his email.

I’m good with the content and messaging.

… Norm


> On Nov 4, 2017, at 2:04 AM, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Staff:  Would you please allow all SSR2 Team members to edit the “Scope of the Review” draft google doc, ASAP.
> 
> Hi, Team Members:  I’m in transit. Please let us know if you have problems accessing the google doc and we’ll make alternate arrangements.  The current text is included below, FYI. Feel free to share edits/comments on the email list.
> 
> Best,
> Denise
> 
> Denise Michel
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> Facebook, Inc.
> denisemichel at fb.com <mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>
> 
> DRAFT GOOGLE DOC
> 
> 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 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)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org <mailto:Ssr2-review at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20171105/aed574ab/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20171105/aed574ab/signature.asc>