[Ssr2-review] Scope document - action needed

ALAIN AINA aalain at trstech.net
Wed Nov 8 07:34:19 UTC 2017 

> On 7 Nov 2017, at 20:13, Don Blumenthal <dmb at donblumenthal.com> wrote:
> 
> No, although I won’t argue my reasons. The more we explain, the more we put ourselves in a defensive position.

I am with Don on this.

The goal of this message is to explain the scope which we were following which put us in this situation or to  define the scope as we see fit the best the work we are tasked to do?

> I also have a severe aversion to work measurement slogans and acronyms. It goes back at least to TQM, the earliest that comes to mind, and has continued through SMART. I’m fairly certain it will go on when another consultant-driven fad supersedes SMART. 

+1. I dont think we need slogans and acronyms in this response…

I would recommend that effort be made to get a "full consensus" on this.

hope this helps

—Alain



> 
> Don
> 
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:34 PM Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <ssr2-review at icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review at icann.org>> wrote:
>  
> 
> Yes
> 
>  
> 
> From: <ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Norm Ritchie <norm at webcatcher.ca <mailto:norm at webcatcher.ca>>
> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 2:33 PM
> To: SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review at icann.org>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ssr2-review] Scope document - action needed
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for pulling the chain of discussion together.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe we are dickering on minor points which do not materially affect the overall statement.
> 
>  
> 
> In a word: Yes.
> 
>  
> 
> … Norm
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com <mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Hi, All.  
> 
>  
> 
> Included below is the version all Team members were asked to review and indicate whether they can support – deadline today (by 11:30 PM Tuesday, UTC).   It includes some edits since we left our last Team meeting in Abu Dhabi, but the focus and substance remains the same. I think we are very close.
> 
>  
> 
> Please send a yes or no on this draft by the deadline.  Let us know if you need more time, or would like to discuss.
> 
>  
> 
> We’re moving this to the email thread as we’re trying to get closure/agreement on one version of the document (not a changing google doc).
> 
>  
> 
> Attached is Geoff Huston’s preferred draft.  
> 
>  
> 
> As I noted, we hope to achieve full agreement. Absent that, we continue to operate by consensus and the Scope document will be delivered to the SO & AC chairs this week.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Denise
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Denise Michel
> 
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> 
> Facebook, Inc.
> 
> denisemichel at fb.com <mailto:denisemichel at fb.com> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear SO/AC Chairs;
> 
> Please find enclosed a description of the SSR2 Review Team’s perspective of the scope of this review. As requested, the SSR2 is completing the requested item to “[resolve] the issues identified and discussed before and during ICANN60 related to scope.”
> 
> We hope this meets your requirements regarding the Review Team’s perspective on the scope of this review. The current Terms of Reference for SSR2’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 here. Additional information on SSR2 activities, including the work plan can be found on the Review Team’s wiki.
> 
> Please let us know if you require anything further. Regards,
> 
> The Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR2)
> 
> ............
> 
> Scope
> 
> The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR2 or Review Team) 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 Review Team on 4 May 2017.
> 
> We would like to offer an overview on the overarching tenets that were adopted and that guided the development of the scope of this review that we hope will be helpful to the SO and AC chairs in considering the parameters associated with resuming this effort: 
> 
> Breadth vs. Depth: In such a review, we believe that it is, in general, more helpful to look at breadth and the broader aspects of security, stability and resiliency rather than dive into depth in just a small number of issues. We believe this approach will lend itself to more informed conclusions that can be contextualized.
> 
> Capability vs. Behaviors: 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 resiliency 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 with respect to topics related to security, stability, and resiliency, rather than provide a detailed prescription of the appropriate responses to be used in particular cases.
> 
> Mindful of the Board’s and Staff’s advice regarding the need for implementable recommendations, the Review Team will strive to provide recommendations that are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely (SMART). Where appropriate, this may require precision, depth or specific examples for recommendations to be actionable by ICANN Org following the review.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com <mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>>
> Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 at 3:46 PM
> To: SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review at icann.org>>
> Subject: Scope document - action needed
> 
>  
> 
> Hi, Team.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you for your edits and comments.  Please take a look at the draft Scope document on google, and share your final thoughts before 23:30 am UTC Tuesday, 7 Nov.
> 
>  
> 
> It seems like we’re close to full agreement but there are a few outstanding items.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Denise
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Denise Michel
> 
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> 
> Facebook, Inc.
> 
> denisemichel at fb.com <mailto:denisemichel at fb.com> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <Scope of the Review Draft - Geoff Huston edits.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171108/dffd5f3a/attachment.html>

More information about the Ssr2-review mailing list