[Ssr2-review] Email replying to Board

Osterweil, Eric eosterweil at verisign.com
Thu Oct 5 19:33:28 UTC 2017


Just to clarify, the intended messaging we want to send to the Board is currently planned to be nothing more than a stop-gap message.  Our plan has been to just summarize how we got here, and to defer the important discussion of our path forward to a later time/communication when the team has had a chance to meet, get on the same page, and to vet a detailed/team-centric perspective.

The idea of postponing the LA meeting comes a little late in the process (as this has been under discussion for months, and we are now just days away, with travel plans made and booked).  We, the co-chairs, would like to schedule a full-team plenary meeting to cover this topic ASAP next week (hopefully Weds or Thurs). The rather than trying to tackle all of that right now, can I just ask if this stop-gap message is something that you all are comfortable with us sending (as outlined below) just so the Board has some kind of answer sooner, rather than later? 


On 10/5/17, 1:25 PM, "ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org on behalf of aalain at trstech.net> wrote:

    I Concur with Geoff. I suggest we look at options to postpone  the LA meeting  and convene a call to discuss the board  and SSAC concerns immediately
    Hope this helps
    > On 5 Oct 2017, at 16:39, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:
    > Denise,
    > Please note in any proposed response that such a response is not based on an unanimous view from all SSR2 Review Team members, and that some individual members of this group have views that differ materially from those expressed in this response and agree with the Board’s stated conceerns. As I have posted already, I happen to share the Board's concerns here (rather than merely ‘noting’ them).
    > thanks,
    >  Geoff
    >> On 6 Oct 2017, at 2:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com> wrote:
    >> Dear Team Members:
    >> As discussed, the co-chairs are preparing a brief email reply to the Board’s latest correspondence regarding the ICANN SSR Subgroup fact-finding meeting in LA Oct 9-10. Because we are so short on time, we’ve outlined the points we’ll make and invite any Team members to provide any comments they may have by COB today (PT). After we send the email, we intend to follow-up with more discussion after the workshop and a more fulsome correspondence to the Board.
    >> 	• SSR mandate from ICANN’s bylaws to provide increased accountability and transparency of ICANN to its community for key aspects of ICANN’s work
    >> 	• SSR2’s terms of reference modelled on bylaws and adopted by majority consensus
    >> 	• Workplan and sub-group efforts flow from ToR
    >> 	• ICANN SSR subgroup’s fact-finding mission at ICANN addresses SSR2’s bylaw obligation.
    >> 	• Note Board concern about risks of exceeding SSR2 scope; Team discussed potential for over-reach while creating ToR, and reinforced Team’s commitment with text on gaining complete understanding of interconnected issues but then ensuring SSR2 recommendations are in-scope.
    >> 	• After subgroup’s Oct 9-10 fact-finding mission, Team will discuss results and next steps.
    >> 	• Look forward to discussing all this with the Board at ICANN 60 and getting more information on Board’s concerns
    >> Best,
    >> Denise & Eric
    >> Denise Michel
    >> Domain Name System Strategy & Management
    >> Facebook, Inc.
    >> denisemichel at fb.com 
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> 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
    Ssr2-review mailing list
    Ssr2-review at icann.org

More information about the Ssr2-review mailing list