[Ssr2-review] Recent developments

Boban Krsic krsic at denic.de
Wed Oct 16 13:46:53 UTC 2019


Hi Žarko, all,

On 03.10.19 10:22, Žarko Kecić wrote:
> I do not feel like someone capable to judge the work of CCT RT and how the ICANN Board responded. I do not agree that we should send any public comments as a team. If some of you need to do so, please do it personally. Since it is not within the scope of SSR2 RT, I do not feel comfortable with the approach that we must submit public comments as a team.

After thinking about your e-mail for a few days, I partly agree with
your statement. Why only in part: on the one hand I think it is
important that the reviews follow a coherent and comprehensible
methodology. By this I mean the continuous support of stakeholders as
well as the balance of mutual expectations. Perhaps not everything ran
or runs optimally, but it would be important to work out and address the
issues. Perhaps this did not happen consistently and ultimately led to
frustration among those involved. On the other hand, I personally don't
believe that we should address certain aspects again in public -
especially since I think they have been dealt with. I therefore propose
that we should balance our expectations and enter into a continuous
dialogue with the board. That would lead to a constructive and hopefully
acceptable result for all stakeholders.

> I believe that most of us still remember our Meeting with Board caucus in Kobe. We all agreed with suggestions given by Board members, to rather have fewer recommendations that counts than a bunch of them that are not that relevant. The latest development doesn't go that direction. We still have a lot of recommendations, and some of them even don't address SSR at all. We started cleanup in Marrakech, but it turned out that we have wasted our time. The process is not continued by the entire team as we expected. Anyway, we'll have to do the cleanup at one point, and in my opinion, it should be done before team members put substantial effort into writing something that may be dropped later on.

I agree with the last of these points in particular. We should ensure
that we have a final draft of the report by end of November at the
latest. We should also try to give a priority and, if necessary, a
potential effort (high-level view) to the recommendations.

This could help to simplify the final evaluation of the outcome and
provide a better planning basis. I am open to any criteria that might
support this.

> I also have some doubts about the recommendations regarding abuse. We are the review team and our tasks are to recognize and point out possible SSR risks and propose high-level actions in how to prevent or mitigate them. We are not entitled to give an order, nor to ignore standard ICANN bottom-up procedures for policy change and new contractual obligations. I agree that abuse is a significant issue regarding our work, but we must be careful about how recommendations are written and what we can ask to be done.

I am also d'accord that we should not make any concrete recommendations
or any particular (technical and/or organizational controls) -
especially if certain recommendations result in a PDP.

Talk to you all soon and hope to see you in Montreal!

	- Boban.



-- 
Boban Kršić
Chief Information Security Officer

DENIC eG, Kaiserstraße 75-77, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, GERMANY

E-Mail: krsic at denic.de, Fon: +49 69 272 35-120, Fax: -248
Mobil: +49 172 67 61 671
https://www.denic.de

PGP Key-ID: 0x43C89BA9
Fingerprint: B974 E725 FEF7 CB3A E452 BEE0 5B80 73E9 43C8 9BA9

Angaben nach § 25a Absatz 1 GenG:
DENIC eG (Sitz: Frankfurt am Main)
Vorstand: Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Sebastian Röthler, Dr.
Jörg Schweiger
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller
Eingetragen unter Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister, Amtsgericht
Frankfurt am Main

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4637 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20191016/7208e4f6/smime.p7s>


More information about the Ssr2-review mailing list