[Ssr2-review] [Potential Spoof] Re: Scope document - action needed

Fri Nov 10 00:36:44 UTC 2017

Sorry folks. I have had to work from my iPhone the last few days, and even
that hasn’t worked out well.

I’m OK with all edits to current version. Being facetious, it might be
better to list the SMART items in a different order to avoid intellectual
property (the other IP) lawyers.

However, an off list conversation with Jennifer about finding a document
triggered a thought. Does this document 1) state a scope or 2) an approach
to developing a scope and work plan.

In short, the current version is good as long as folks agree that it
addresses the purpose. I would be ready with something more specific on
scope in case we get flak.

Don

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:24 PM ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:

> Hi Denise,
>
> On 9 Nov 2017, at 16:32, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Alain.
>
> While the co-chairs strive to remain neutral while chairing meetings and
> facilitating group efforts, we also are members of the Team and have a
> responsibility to share our personal opinions. The few specific
> contributions I made to the scope document were done in my individual
> capacity, as were other Team members’ contributions.
>
> My call for yes/no or additional language was done as a co-chair.
>
>
>
> We can have a separate discussion on the leadership and its style as
> started in Abu Dhabi. I think this must happen as part of the un-pause
> process to better organize our operations for the future.
>
>
> Respectfully, we disagree on the appropriateness of you and Don offering
> language that would satisfy your objections, in the interest of achieving
> full consensus. I think it is incumbent on all Team members to engage in
> this process.
>
>
> We are all engaged in this process and i  was expecting you to read my
> last response as “no need for further discussions”.
>
> The discussion  was more about  principles than wordings.  "At this stage,
> no need for extra adjectives, slogans and Acronyms”.
>
> I can live with all the proposed texts.
>
>
> I see Boban offered  alternative language. I’ll poll the group on that in
> a separate thread.
>
> Happy to discuss this further, if you’d like.
>
>
> No need. Let move on
>
> Hope this helps
>
> —Alain
>
>
>
> Best,
> Denise
>
>
> Denise Michel
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> Facebook, Inc.
> *denisemichel at fb.com <denisemichel at fb.com>*
>
>
>
> *From: *<ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of ALAIN AINA <
> aalain at trstech.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:59 AM
> *To: *SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ssr2-review] [Potential Spoof] Re: Scope document -
> action needed
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 9 Nov 2017, at 02:40, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, All.
>
> We have a strong majority of “yes” for the statement below.
>
>
>  I recorded that the chairs did not remain neutral while driving this
> consensus process and this justifies the question below to Don and I
>
>
> A question to Don and Alain (in the “no” column):  Do you want to offer an
> edit for another round of polling in an effort to make this a full
> consensus (abstains notwithstanding)?
>
>
> I would expect the chairs after listening to various  comments and
> suggestions to propose a new version to make the group converge. We were so
> close to a full consensus.
> Asking us to provide an edit for a new polling is not appropriate in my
> view.
>
> Having said that, please record my objection(“no”) and move on with the
> “strong majority of Yes"
>
> Hope this helps
>
> —Alain
>
>
>
>
>   Friday is the deadline we committed to in our SO/AC correspondence so we
> can take a bit more time if you feel it’s worthwhile.
>
> Thanks.
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
> Facebook, Inc.
> *denisemichel at fb.com <denisemichel at fb.com>*
>
>
>
> *From: *<ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Denise Michel <
> denisemichel at fb.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 11:13 AM
> *To: *SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Potential Spoof] Re: [Ssr2-review] Scope document - action
> needed
>
> 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 <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>
> *Date: *Monday, November 6, 2017 at 3:46 PM
> *To: *SSR2 <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 <denisemichel at fb.com>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=7w8rtojQFeXnkEWr28BCoiQg-AFmAY0CLfa50HmjsXM&s=l5r56MIMzfIsF16V7BordgNx-TKOBTZ7c0qp72I7TP8&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171110/288ccf8b/attachment.html>