<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<style>
<!--
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
span.x_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Laurin</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I made changes please lt me know if you can see it.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Kind Regards<br>
Kerry-Ann Barrett<br>
Cyber Security Policy Specialist<br>
Organization of American States</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="border:none; padding:0in"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:laurin.weissinger@yale.edu">Weissinger, Laurin</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:kc@caida.org">k claffy</a><br>
<b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org">SSR2 Review</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology</p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Dear KC and Kerry-Ann, <br>
Dear all, <br>
<br>
I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph.
<br>
<br>
Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything.
<br>
I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it?<br>
<br>
Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work.
<br>
Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document.
<br>
<br>
All the best<br>
Laurin <br>
<br>
P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Kerry-Ann,<br>
> <br>
> I would be happy to see that, thank you!<br>
> <br>
> I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten<br>
> to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going<br>
> to show up..<br>
> <br>
> k<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:<br>
>> Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
<br>
>> <br>
>> Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today? <br>
>> <br>
>> I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.<br>
>> <br>
>> Cheers<br>
>> Kerry-Ann<br>
>> <br>
>>> On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> I disagree with the last paragraph,<br>
>>> and think it undermines the entire assessment<br>
>>> and the review process.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Can you provide specific examples of recommendations<br>
>>> that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing?<br>
>>> Because that is what the current text implies.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> If someone is not satisfied with the way these<br>
>>> assessments have been done, leadership should ask<br>
>>> them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they <br>
>>> consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation.<br>
>>> Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone<br>
>>> on ICANN staff as well.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> But we cannot write a report and then end it with<br>
>>> "it would take too long and too many resources<br>
>>> to do this accurately, so we didn't."<br>
>>> <br>
>>> My specific suggestion is to remove the last<br>
>>> paragraph of the Limitations section.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> k<br>
>>> <br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Ssr2-review mailing list<br>
>>> Ssr2-review@icann.org<br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review</a><br>
>> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ssr2-review mailing list<br>
Ssr2-review@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>