[Ssr2-review] Direction for Recommendation 1

[Russ Housley]

Two people on the call spoke for CHOICE 3.  Now, KC has spoken for CHOICE 2.  I would like to hear from others too.

Russ


> On May 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, k claffy <kc at caida.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>