[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: [technical-issues] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List

FYI,


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>
Date: 2014-02-11 12:39 GMT-03:00
Subject: [technical-issues] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Invitation to Join the
GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing
List
To: Technical issues <technical-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


 FYI -- some people here may wish to join the GNSO-SSR mailing list.
Kind regards,

Olivier


-------- Original Message --------  Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Invitation
to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency
(SSR) Mailing List  Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:29:57 -0500  From: ICANN News
Alert <communications@xxxxxxxxx> <communications@xxxxxxxxx>  To:
<ocl@xxxxxxx> <ocl@xxxxxxx>

 [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
------------------------------
 Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability,
Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List

4 February 2014
 Charter

GNSO-SSR - A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing
List
To join RSVP gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Premise

This charter briefly describes an open group sponsored by the GNSO. This
group will informally review SSAC reports to determine whether they contain
recommendations that might deserve broader consideration in the GNSO.
 Problem Statement

Recommendations made by the SSAC sometimes are relevant to GNSO policy
making, yet the mechanism for the GNSO to find out or act on them is not
well developed.

The current process is for the SSAC to give advice to the Board, with the
presumption that the Board will pass relevant issues along to the GNSO for
consideration. This doesn't appear to be happening in all cases, with
sometimes-unsatisfactory results. Here are two examples:

   -

   The SSAC produced an extensive report
(SAC007<http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf>[PDF,
400 KB]) in 2005 that addressed the issue of domain-name hijacking.
   In 2011, six years later, members of the GNSO IRTP-B working group stumbled
   across the following observation in that report and realized that it was a
   good idea:
    - *"Collect emergency contact information from registrants, registrars
      and resellers for parties who are suited to assist in responding to an
      urgent restoration of domain name incident. Define escalation processes
      (emergency procedures) that all parties agree can be instituted in events
      where emergency contacts are not available."*

   It took six years for that very common-sense idea to find its way into
   Consensus Policy and probably another year or two to implement.
    - The SSAC wrote a report
(SAC045<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-045-en.pdf>[PDF,
507 KB]) in 2010 titled "Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root
   Level of the DNS" which provided an early warning about the "name
   collisions" problem. Again, an opportunity to proactively research this
   issue was missed and ICANN finds itself scrambling to deal with an issue
   that is much complicated by the fact that a number of the highest-volume
   invalid strings are now applied-for strings and soon to be delegated into
   the root.

 A related problem is that the stakeholder-group structure of the GNSO does
not have an SSR-focused forum for this kind of cross-GNSO conversation.

*How does not solving this problem get in the way of achieving ICANN's
objectives?*

The implication is that the GNSO may sometimes fail to consider SSAC
recommendations in a timely way, or at all.

Specifically, not solving the problem raises the possibility of:

   - Negative impacts on SSR of the DNS - as a result of not considering or
   implementing SSAC recommendations, or building trust relationships in an
   SSR community of interest
   - Increased implementation costs - as a result of delay in considering
   SSAC proposals that may bear on GNSO consensus policy
   - Lower quality of implementation - as a result of not taking fullest
   advantage of the rigor of the multi-stakeholder analysis and PDP processes

 Value to be gained

In addition to addressing the problems listed above, the GNSO will benefit
from having this group by:

   - Broadening the pool of participants -- by identifying and engaging
   community members who have interest and skills in SSR of the DNS
   - Building trust relationships - by providing community members an
   opportunity to work together in a low-key setting

 Approach

The primary work product of this group will be periodic informal
suggestions of SSR-related topics to be considered by the GNSO. The form of
that consideration may vary. Possibilities include:

   - An Issue Report
   - An alert to a currently-running working group or implementation review
   team
   - Notifications to constituencies and stakeholder groups

 The group:

   - Will do its work via an email list - no teleconferences are planned
   - Is open to all members of the ICANN community - all AC's and SO's,
   staff, Board, etc.
   - Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSO
   Statement of
Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>before
they are subscribed to the list
   - Will maintain open public email archives - and thus will not discuss
   private or confidential information
   - Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him
   and offers to take over
   - To join the mailing list please *RSVP* gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



  This message was sent to ocl@xxxxxxx from:

ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It
Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>

<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=YVM2&m=930154&c=165637>



_______________________________________________