[Ssr2-review] SSR2 recommended actions to complete SSR1

Thu Feb 20 17:34:10 UTC 2020

Hi,

I'm very sorry that the F2F meeting has been canceled at this time. This will make our task of getting the job done in the short time very difficult.

When I say that, I mean not only a lot of work that we knew was ahead of us but also the work that we avoided to do immediately or more recently.

I fully support the position of the KC, not only on the review of the implementation of the SSR1 recommendations, to which I have repeatedly drawn attention, but also on the overall concept of the report, the relevance of the individual parts, and in particular the manner and choice of arguments in which some of its parts are written.

I do not know what the public comments on our draft report will be, but I am afraid they will not be as we had hoped. Whatever happens, I expect all team members to reflect on what KC has said and suggested. I fully share her opinion and I think that this time we should face reality.

Best,
Zarko

-----Original Message-----
From: Ssr2-review <ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of k claffy
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:15 AM
To: ssr2-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 recommended actions to complete SSR1

Denise, et al.

As I sent the markup to the appendix, much of the text about the SSR1 recommendations is not defensible and must be substantiated or removed.  I don't know the status of this work, but my comments alone on the rest of the
SSR2 draft as it stands will take a full day of dedicated discussion in virtual-Cancun.  

Also I've been part of the SSAC WP led by Geoff Huston to write a public comment to the SSR2 report. I don't agree with everything in SSAC's public comment (being rushed due to short time window, will be in by deadline) but I agree with a lot of it, and I think in order for the good advice in this report to be effective, we are going to need a serious effort
to rewrite the report based on the public comments.   We are
not close.  

Frankly I am not convinced the current RT (or any volunteer
RT) has it in them to complete this report.

I think we need to make a decision in virtual Cancun, or as soon as we have all digested all the public comments, on whether we will even try, or declare deadlock and recommend a different procedure all together. 

k

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:00:19PM +0000, Denise Michel wrote:
 > Hi. As I understand it, the recommendation ??? fully implement the previous SSR1 recommendations ??? is in the body of the report.  More details on what that means for each and every recommendation is in the annex.  I support this construct.
 > 
 > It tracks with keeping the information that???s most important for community engagement in the body of the report, keeping the body as streamlined as possible, and putting the rest in the annex.
 > 
 > Best,
 > Denise
 > 
 > Denise Michel
 > denisemichel at fb.com<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>
 > 
 > 
 > From: Ssr2-review <ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Heather Flanagan <hlf at sphericalcowconsulting.com>
 > Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:50 AM
 > To: SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org>
 > Subject: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 recommended actions to complete SSR1
 > 
 > Hello SSR2 Review Team,
 > 
 > As a result of today???s call, I???ve copied over the contents of the SSR2 recommended actions to complete SSR1 into the Appendix D: Findings Related to SSR1. I???ve also added the specific recommended action to each SSR1 Recommendation, so it can be viewed in context. The new content has not been edited beyond basic spell checking.
 > 
 > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10U0rR1bPIQo-OSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-tyW/edit#<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_10U0rR1bPIQo-2DOSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-2DtyW_edit-23&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=ZHUa87RDw-IDv9s2-aL2joWjEvhqa38sYJ2pICKamS4&s=WUNxMbLhTXH9-EWM_RIa8jChJCZN4_TXDZ-Nkp_AQrg&e=>
 > 
 > After viewing these in context, is there a step where we need to officially call consensus on the new recommendations?
 > 
 > Also, it???s important to note that we now have recommendations in an appendix and not in the body of the text. Kc has already pointed out that???s a problem; I agree.  Is it time for Appendix D to go back to being a section in the body of the document?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Thanks! Heather

 > _______________________________________________
 > 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.

_______________________________________________
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.