[Ssr2-review] [EXT] Re: SSR1 Assessment Methodology

[Barrett, Kerry-Ann]

Laurin

I made changes please lt me know if you can see it.



Kind Regards
Kerry-Ann Barrett
Cyber Security Policy Specialist
Organization of American States



From: Weissinger, Laurin<mailto:laurin.weissinger at yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM
To: k claffy<mailto:kc at caida.org>
Cc: SSR2 Review<mailto:ssr2-review at icann.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology



Dear KC and Kerry-Ann,
Dear all,

I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph.

Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything.
I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it?

Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work.
Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document.

All the best
Laurin

P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.



> On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc at caida.org> wrote:
>
>
> Kerry-Ann,
>
> I would be happy to see that, thank you!
>
> I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten
> to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going
> to show up..
>
> k
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:
>> Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
>>
>> Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today?
>>
>> I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Kerry-Ann
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc at caida.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree with the last paragraph,
>>> and think it undermines the entire assessment
>>> and the review process.
>>>
>>> Can you provide specific examples of recommendations
>>> that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing?
>>> Because that is what the current text implies.
>>>
>>> If someone is not satisfied with the way these
>>> assessments have been done, leadership should ask
>>> them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they
>>> consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation.
>>> Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone
>>> on ICANN staff as well.
>>>
>>> But we cannot write a report and then end it with
>>> "it would take too long and too many resources
>>> to do this accurately, so we didn't."
>>>
>>> My specific suggestion is to remove the last
>>> paragraph of the Limitations section.
>>>
>>> k
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20181127/aa8dc6ce/attachment.html>