[Ssr2-review] Next call and misc items

Thu Jul 5 14:56:14 UTC 2018

Dear SSR2 Team

Ive noted some suggested tasks for Phil to help the team with but we should also keep in mind the scope when Phil’s services was procured as outlined by the SO/AC Chairs (email dated March 13, 2018) and extracted below:

The primary aim of the external facilitator would be to facilitate this transition process, with a view to winding facilitation down when RT members and leaders consider that issues are satisfactorily resolved to continue their work." We consider the role of the facilitator to be a) onboarding new members who have joined since the "pause" and agreeing on leadership from within the current membership; b) helping the group to work through concerns around membership and scope as identified in a confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC Chairs shortly after the pause; and c) helping the RT to identify ways to reach consensus. Specifically in response to the procurement practice:

•                    Skill set requirements: To most effectively fulfil a), b) and c) above, the facilitator should be external to ICANN, with expertise in group dynamics and empowering group members with divergent views and experience to coalesce around a common goal. The SO/AC Chairs will provide the confidential responses received to the survey conducted following ICANN60 which sought RT member input on issues relating to membership and scope, and which generated quite divergent responses. The facilitator must therefore establish a safe space in which the broad range of views on membership and scope can be discussed and common positions identified, with agreement on moving forward in an agreed statement of scope and list of members.

•                    Experience requirements: As appropriate to meet skill set requirements above

•                    Scope of work:  a) helping the group to coalesce around leadership and onboarding new members who have joined since the "pause"; b) helping the group to work through concerns around membership and scope as identified in a confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC Chairs shortly after the pause;  c) helping the RT to identify ways to reach consensus.

•                    Timing and duration: Facilitation ends when all expected deliverables (below) are completed.

•                    Expected deliverables: a) confirmation of membership list of RT going forward, with chair/s identified; b) an agreed statement of scope; and c) if considered necessary by the RT members, a request from the RT for additional or different resources (ie, more members with particular skills, refinements to staff support), with a clear statement as to how any such request is necessary to and directly supportive of the RT's work.

I’m not sure if the scope changed since that email but in the last call, I did raise the need for clarification as to how Phil will be working with the co-chairs to ensure continuity of the work while allowing him to fulfil the mandates under his TOR.

Sincerely,
Kerry-Ann

From: Ssr2-review [mailto:ssr2-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 3:10 PM
To: SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] Next call and misc items

Thanks Matogoro, Alain and Geoff for your contributions.  This will be fed into Phil’s work and our discussions.

Additional comments are encouraged!

Best,
Denise

Denise Michel
Domain Name System Strategy & Management
Facebook, Inc.
denisemichel at fb.com<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>

From: Matogoro Jabera <jaberamatogoro at gmail.com<mailto:jaberamatogoro at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:38 AM
To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net<mailto:gih at apnic.net>>
Cc: SSR2 <ssr2-review at icann.org<mailto:ssr2-review at icann.org>>, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>>
Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Next call and misc items

Dear Team,

Phil should concentrate on ToR that was assigned to him. In most cases he will need to understand the ground work done by the RT before pause.

I have no idea on what went wrong until the board paused this work. I only know that SSAC advised the board that we are not making progress and ICANN resource are being wasted.

Similarly, what I also remember is that we have members in RT who are playing an oversight role and report to the board if we are not going to the direction that RT suppose to go and not giving their guidance on how better to correct what is not going to the correct direction. May be partly is due to lack of consensus approach among the team. Phil was tasked to address this too.

As we are restarting it is better to make sure we respective idea and contribution from each one of us known that we have different level of understanding on various matters but that should not be a weapon to weaken those looking to catch and contribute better.

Speaking from academic point view. We loosed on the methodology for this task and looking that Phil will help the team to adopt a methodology which will later help the team to come up with SMART recommendation.

Regards,
Matogoro

On Jul 4, 2018 4:16 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic.net<mailto:gih at apnic.net>> wrote:

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 4:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Team members and Staff.
>
> In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items.  As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.).

I wonder about the wisdom of just picking up from last time and resuming the same structures. We have now been provided with Phil and I think we should make extensive use of him in this work. With the exception of Phil and the ICANN staff we are all volunteers and we all have limited time and resources to devote to this activity. I’d like to see us make good use of Phil’s availability to offload much of the work that the volunteer structure has already encountered problems.

> Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team).
>
> Open Items:
>       • What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing”
>               • Matogoro emailed his suggestions
>               • We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?)
>               • Other? (please share on list and on call)
>       • At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs)
>       • Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs)
>       • What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else?
>       • Other? (please share on list and on call)
>

Missing is “what went wrong with the SSR to the extent that the Board felt it necessary to pause this effort in 2017, and what can we learn from this to improve how this review it to function”

I suspect that the basic issues were an ambitious scope of work and insufficient resources from the volunteer group to undertake this work. Perhaps we might like to contemplate a slightly different approach that makes the best use of Phil as a facilitator of the team, and

I would like to propose that Phil review the Terms of Reference of this review and report back. Is the ToR sufficiently focussed to define the work? Should the ToR be sharpened up to review specific aspects of ICANN’s carriage of security and stability aspects of the DNS?  What is achievable in this area?

I would like to think that once we consider Phil’s review of the ToR we could then look at what aspect of this topic area we would like studied and work with Phil to figure out what studies we would like to commission by third parties, as coordinated by Phil obviously.

thanks,

  Geoff

_______________________________________________
Ssr2-review mailing list
Ssr2-review at icann.org<mailto:Ssr2-review at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=x1UibOPe439GJe3dljZQKtI5pCZmngwKS3KKTZUw_IY&s=LtAF5ElpZD7_vAOQIOkp741fTetkeoMjOI1rYMdLTHs&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20180705/e57aeda3/attachment.html>