[Ssr2-review] Recent developments

[ALAIN AINA]

Hello,


> On 3 Oct 2019, at 08:22, Žarko Kecić <Zarko.Kecic at rnids.rs> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly, I would like to congratulate KC and Matagoro. KC this is a great honor and it is well deserved.
> 
> I am confused about recent activities by the team.
> 
> I do not feel like someone capable to judge the work of CCT RT and how the ICANN Board responded. I do not agree that we should send any public comments as a team. If some of you need to do so, please do it personally. Since it is not within the scope of SSR2 RT, I do not feel comfortable with the approach that we must submit public comments as a team.
> 


On the plenary call held on the 25 September 2019, i said that  it is inappropriate for us as  a review team to comment on  the implementation plan  and that the way people will perceive the comment may not serve us. I suggested that people comment as individual.Apparently a majority  in support of team comment won  and an action item was recorded about  that.

I went further  by saying that  the most important thing for us as team, with what is going on with the CCT-review report is what  can we learn, especially with writing our recommendations from our work.

Despite my opposition to the team comment, i read the draft proposed by Denise and can’t see anything related to SSR, to our work, excerpt possible demoralisation  of team members.  What i see, is  just  a  statement  against board actions  without  consideration of the details contain in the resolution 2019.03.01.03


> I believe that most of us still remember our Meeting with Board caucus in Kobe. We all agreed with suggestions given by Board members, to rather have fewer recommendations that counts than a bunch of them that are not that relevant. The latest development doesn't go that direction. We still have a lot of recommendations, and some of them even don't address SSR at all. We started cleanup in Marrakech, but it turned out that we have wasted our time. The process is not continued by the entire team as we expected. Anyway, we’ll have to do the cleanup at one point, and in my opinion, it should be done before team members put substantial effort into writing something that may be dropped later on.
> 
> I also have some doubts about the recommendations regarding abuse. We are the review team and our tasks are to recognize and point out possible SSR risks and propose high-level actions in how to prevent or mitigate them. We are not entitled to give an order, nor to ignore standard ICANN bottom-up procedures for policy change and new contractual obligations. I agree that abuse is a significant issue regarding our work, but we must be careful about how recommendations are written and what we can ask to be done.


In summary, we seem to still be hostage of  a bad understand of our role and  scope of our work. Looking into depth in small issues, focusing on particular circumstances and going into  prescription mode.


Thanks

—Alain


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Žarko
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.