[Ssr2-review] Please review the first 5 SSR1 recommendations for the call tomorrow

[ALAIN AINA]

Russ,

> On 10 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table.  I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it.  Attached is the resulting structure for the table.  At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it.  Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?


To ease the comprehension and the assessment  of the recommendations and their implementation, it may be good to add to the table the  focus area and may be sub-focus area of the recommendation.

The SSR1  used 3 focus area:

1- Scope and Structure of ICANN’s SSR Responsibilities

2- Effectiveness and Implementation of the SSR Framework. 

3- Understanding the Risk Landscape and Contingency Planning 


Example in the attached file…


HTH

—Alain






> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations.  We will take them each in turn.  I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
>> 
>> The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
>> 
>>  Section 4.6  (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which
>>  prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent
>>  to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the
>>  intended effect.
>> 
>> At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task.  I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
>> 
>>  Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation?
>>  (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
>> 
>>  Is the recommendation still relevant today?
>>  If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events.
>>  If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
>> 
>>     If so, write a short statement saying so.
>>     if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
>> 
>>        If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it.
>>        If not, write a short statement with the reason.
>> 
>> I look forward to our call tomorrow.
>> 
>> Russ
> 
> <SSR1-Rec-Table-v04.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180913/0db51777/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SSR1-Rec-Table-v04-AA.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16375 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20180913/0db51777/SSR1-Rec-Table-v04-AA.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20180913/0db51777/attachment-0001.html>