[Ssr2-review] Subteam Status

Sun May 24 18:59:15 UTC 2020

I have always had, and made clear, a different opinion on this
issue.  I believe we need to do Option 1, but we do not have
the resources.  So we should probably have a recommendation
that makes it clear that given the state of documentation, it
was not possible for an independent review committee to do a
reasonable job at the required task of assessing all previous
implementations and their effectivness, beyond knowing that
there were gaps, for the reasons we highlight at the top of
Appendix D.  so we recommend this review task be outsourced to 
paid professionals, who should take appendix D and review the 
gaps that we discovered, and then make these recommendations SMART.

I suspect we will also need to recommend this outsourcing 
for our own recommendations, because I believe we cannot 
even make those SMART in limited volunteer review time.

I will note that ATRT3's original plan to perform this required 
reivew of ATRT2's implementation was just to accept ICANN's own
self-assessment, due to the 12-month time window.  Several of 
us on the team objected to this approach, and prevailed, but 
we had the same trouble that SSR2 did with evaluating previous
implementations.  I will also note that this is why ICANN now
has implementation shepherds and the new Operating Standards,
so they are quite aware of the problem.  Alas, CCT's 
implementation shepherds have not had much to shepherd..

That said, I am in favor of dropping as many recommendations 
as we can justify dropping from both SSR1 and 2.  
Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Eric yet about the 
ones we volunteered to cover. I hope this week.

k

  > CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART.  (A lot of work).

this issue; I think we should not have  

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:23:30AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
  The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below).  If you have a different opinion, please speak up now.

  Russ

  > On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
  > 
  > SUBTEAM 1
  > 
  > The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
  > 
  > 1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
  > 
  > 2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
  > 
  > In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1.  I think we need to recategorize it.
  > 
  >   (SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of
  >   implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically,
  >   the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe
  >   of the necessary actions required to implement all of these
  >   recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish
  >   to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a
  >   significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the
  >   27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
  > 
  > This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations.  The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
  > 
  > I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
  > 
  > 
  > CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART.  (A lot of work).
  > CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
  > 
  > CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
  > 
  > We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
  > 
  > Russ
  > 
  > 
  >> On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
  >> 
  >> We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
  >> 
  >> I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
  >> 
  >> Thanks,
  >> Russ
  >> 
  >> - - - - - - - -
  >> 
  >> Subteam No. / Rapporteur
  >> 
  >> 1	Russ
  >> 2	Boban
  >> 3	Kerry-Ann
  >> 4	Noorul
  >> 5	Laurin
  >> 6	Norm
  >> 7	Boban
  >> 8	Boban
  >> 9	Boban
  >> 10	Denise
  >> 11	Denise
  >> 12	Denise
  >> 13	Denise
  >> 14	Denise
  >> 15	Laurin
  >> 16	Laurin
  >> 17	Laurin
  >> 18	Laurin
  >> 19	kc
  >> 20	Eric
  >> 21	Eric
  >> 22	kc
  >> 23	Zarko
  >> 24	kc
  >> 25	kc
  >> 26	Zarko
  >> 27	Alain
  >> 28	Naveed
  >> 29	Kerry-Ann
  >> 30	Eric
  >> 31	Zarko
  > 

  _______________________________________________
  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.