[Ssr2-review] Recommendation Number 1
kc at caida.org
Tue Jan 28 06:58:48 UTC 2020
It's too late not to re-open the appendix, as I went at it
with my fine-tooth comb that transmogrified into a pitchfork.
some of that text is simply indefensible and must be substantiated
or removed. i put my comments in the wrong google doc (the
marked up one instead of clean one) and heather offered to
move them to the right place during the calm between the storms.
I'm right with you that we have to pull out exactly what we
recommend for all the SSR1-Incompletes, as our biggest
gripe about the SSR1 recs were how un-SMART they were. we
cannot follow that gripe with "btw, go finish all of them, and
go look in the appendix where we hide many additional
recommendations, but also generally do not provide any SMART
version of what we recommend, nor even use the word "recommend".
But, rather than have 27 new subrecommendations under
Recommendation 1, a bunch of which just point to other
Recommendations, I think we need to pull any SSR1 work
out into new recommendations, or drop them. The document
is just spaghetti o/w.
But I am all in favor of someone else undergoing the exercise
Russ suggests because it will illuminate the problem.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 02:26:17PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> I have been thinking about the SSR1-related discussion on the team call last week. To avoid opening the SSR1 appendix back up, I am thinking that we could change Recommendation 1 to be VERY specific. Yes, I am aware that this suggestion is at odds with the ICANN SME plea that we "over engineer" our recommendations. However, this suggestion does provide a clear way for SSR3 to measure our first recommendation. I suggest that we structure the recommendation like this:
> Finish implementing SSR1 recommendations by:
> - Rec 1: Do X
> - Rec 2: Do Y
> - Rec 9: See SSR2 Rec 2
> - Rec 10: Do ...
> - Rec 11: Do ...
> - Rec 12: See SSR2 Rec 3
> - Rec 20: See SSR2 Rec 4
> - Rec 26: (No further action needed)
> - Rec 27: See SSR2 Rec 5
> - Rec 28: Do Z
> This approach tells the ICANN staff what we looked for and did not find, yet it would avoid reopening the appendix. What do you think?
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org
More information about the Ssr2-review