I definitely agree with Stephanie, in particular No. 3. This exchange is of value if prepared with more detailed questions related to the impact of SSAC to GNSO work. As we do in relation to other ACs (e.g. GAC).
If this exchange could be improved then I see the formalization as consequential step.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Action Item - GNSO/SSAC Liaison(s)
 
1.  I think this discussion is very valuable.  When Patrik has said, "we have this document, go read it", I have done so and found them to be excellent resources.  We should explore ways to support greater use of and understanding of their work, certainly.
2.  A formal liaison would be useful to keep their workplans and priorities on our radar, and vice verse.
3.  Advance planning for SSAC briefings, including suggested reading on their side,  and a list of questions on our side would make the briefings more relevant.  Then we could have a richer discussion.
4.  I think we should formalize a kind of SSAC review when we develop the PDP charters.  Consultation at that stage would ensure that relevant SSAC existing work. or future security concerns, could be flagged.  For instance, in the RDS PDP David mentioned, in my view the EWG report should be read with the SSAC comments on the EWG draft in hand.  Certainly we have several members of SSAC on the RDS pdp, but sometimes these things are hit and miss, a formal review could be helpful to ensure coverage, and a liaison would also be useful to help SSAC anticipate new work we are needing help on.
In short, all four of your bullets are great in my view.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-04-22 16:53, James M. Bladel wrote:
Council Colleagues -
 
Continuing with the “spring cleaning” of our Action Item list,  here’s another item that has been in a pending state for quite some time. 
 
Yesterday I was able to meet with Patrik  (Chairs, SSAC) to discuss ideas to strengthen coordination between our two organizations, up to and including a formal exchange of liaisons.  As we’ve noted previously, the SSAC’s rules require that any of its members (including a potential liaison) would need to meet the general membership requirements, which include a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
 
Patrik and I also discussed alternatives to a formal liaison that would keep the two groups mutually informed. We both agreed that the standard SSAC presentation/Q&A sessions at ICANN meetings had limited value, and we should revise the format to specifically address topics where either or both sides had specific questions or asks. 
 
Furthermore, Patrik noted that some PDPs could benefit from existing or planned SSAC research, and we should reinforce the availability of the SSAC as a resource for new PDPs.  We also observed that there is significant membership overlap between some individuals and groups, and that this should be leveraged to enhance cooperation.  Finally, ICANN Staff can help facilitate communication between the GNSO (Council & PDPs) and SSAC, if they flag topics that have potentially shared interests, and raise this with leadership of all groups.
 
Possible action items / paths forward:
  1. Continue to pursue formal exchange of liaisons between the GNSO & SSAC, noting the constraints listed above.
  2. Modify the SSAC/GNSO sessions at ICANN meetings to be a more free-flowing conversation about topics that share mutual interests.
  3. Encourage PDPs and other GNSO groups to consider the utility & applicability of SSAC research in their work.
  4. Ask Staff to help facilitate information exchange between the two groups.
I look forward to your thoughts & comments on this subject.
 
Thanks—
 
J.