Hi Susan, Phil, all, I hear you. It is in the transcript from the meeting today at 2pm that I asked Chris Disspain and Rinalia Hemrajani what would happen after the community instructed SSR2 to resume - ie, would the Board intervene, challenge the outcome, etc. The transcript will show: - Chris: SO/AC leaders to determine next steps; Board does not expect to have a veto, cannot guarantee an outcome, but "stands ready to assist" - Cherine: Community has responsibility to re-start; worst thing that could happen is start/stop/start/stop I don't know where we'll stand on further amendments. If we can't get this in, can we live with putting this in a separate GNSO Council statement? H On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
I am concerned there is no clear call for action regarding removing the suspension on the team. What is the path forward for the team? Do they wait until someone else does the following? Is the team responsible for addressing these issues and give themselves the sign off? Does the Board get final say or what about the SO/AC's?
"address issues relating to the scope, composition and participation, resource utilization, and overall work plan of the Review"
Who is responsible for determining all of the above have been addressed? If the team meets on Friday then do they work on these issues but need oversight?
I do not want to delay this letter but if we do not provide clarity then the confusion continues to reign.
I appreciate the language referring to the board I think you captured the right tone.
Susan
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Drazek, Keith via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Heather. I think this looks good. I assume you meant to type “reached the point of **no** further modifications?”
If this is the final text, I support it.
If any further edits are made, I’d suggest changing the work “tasked” in the first paragraph to “request” so it doesn’t sound like the Board is telling the SO/ACs what to do. They really don’t have that power IMO. Here’s that suggested text:
The Chairs of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) acknowledge the 28 October 2017 announcement from the Board of Directors, pausing the work of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2-RT), and the Board's request in sessions this week that the SOs and ACs address concerns raised by the Board, Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).
Thanks to you and James for all your work on this important communication.
Keith
*From:* council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.i cann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Thursday, November 02, 2017 3:37 PM *To:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Fwd: [soac-chairs] Draft Statement SSR2
Dear GNSO Council colleagues,
Following the Board's meeting with SSR2 and then meeting with SO/AC leaders this afternoon, we have reached the point of further modifications to the SO/AC communication below.
As James noted in our Wrap-Up meeting today, this is very much a negotiated effort, and drafting by committee has had all the usual challenges. We have added the note of thanks and tried to strengthen the forward-looking concerns. The draft below has our, Brad Verd and Kristina Sataki's inputs. It is now making the rounds. It is a product of drafting by committee, so it still needs a look with fresh eyes for typos etc.
My view is let's try not to re-open negotiation unless it's absolutely imperative. I'm inclined to suggest that any lingering GNSO-specific concerns that we want to hammer home can go into a GNSO-specific response. Any objections?
Best wishes,
Heather
STATEMENT FROM SO/AC CHAIRS ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY REVIEW
The Chairs of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) acknowledge the 28 October 2017 announcement from the Board of Directors, pausing the work of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2-RT), and the Board's having tasked the SOs and ACs in sessions this week with addressing concerns raised by the Board, Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).
Collectively, we accept responsibility for getting SSR2-RT restarted as expeditiously as possible. During various sessions throughout ICANN60, our groups have met with the Board and/or members of SSR2-RT to hear their concerns. We intend to continue to consult with our respective communities, and each other, to assess and address issues relating to the scope, composition and participation, resource utilization, and overall work plan of the Review.
Additionally, the Board’s unilateral decision to suspend the work of a key accountability mechanism has raised questions that go to the independence of SSR2-RT, and specific reviews going forward. As a follow-on effort, we intend to examine the selection and scoping process for review teams, and develop a clear and predictable process for raising and addressing concerns about review teams. We also intend to carefully consider the Board's action, with a view to preventing similar instances in the future. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Board, SSR2-RT and the broader community on this task.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the efforts of our colleagues on the SSR2-RT to date, and thank them for their continued commitment towards security, stability and resiliency.
[Signatures] Alan (ALAC), Patrik (SSAC), Katrina (ccNSO), Thomas (GAC outgoing), Manal (GAC incoming), James (GNSO outgoing), Heather (GNSO incoming), Tripti Sinha(RSSAC Co-Chair and Brad Verd (RSSAC Co-Chair), (Etc.)
Cheers, Brad
On 11/2/17, 1:30 AM, "soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Verd, Brad via soac-chairs" <soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org on behalf of soac-chairs@icann.org> wrote:
I don't’ know if anyone has the pen on the document, and in order to have the statement reviewed and agreed in time for the public forum I would need to see the current version of the statement. I assume the changes which I have seen on this thread are accounted for and we have ensured there are no further suggestions. In light of the time schedule one possible way forward is that we could create a google doc and work to consensus in that manner.
Cheers, Brad
On 11/2/17, 1:03 AM, "soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Katrina Sataki" <soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org on behalf of katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
I think there’s a common understanding that we as chairs cannot decide (anything) without consulting our communities first. However, I think that we do not need to consult our communities if that’s ok for us “to consult with our respective communities” (
I am in favour of issuing this statement today. After our meeting with the Board perhaps?
Thanks!
]{atrina
On 02/11/2017, 06:53, "Patrik Fältström" < soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
Today we have the public forum 15:45-18:30.
Do we think we can send a note today, and if so before the public forum? I do understand that even if you as individuals think the text "is ok", you must pass the text via your respective communities and because of that sending the note "now" is not possible for any definition of "now" :-)
So no stress. I just want to be aware of your respective timelines, so that I know this (if possible) before my meeting with ICANN Board 1030-1130 today and specifically the public forum at which I might as SSAC Chair have to go to the microphone.
FWIW, I am ok with the text.
Patrik
On 2 Nov 2017, at 7:14, Verd, Brad via soac-chairs wrote:
> Is there a “clean” version with updates that can be shared so we have time to cogitate on it? > > Cheers, > Brad > > > From: <soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu> > Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 10:05 AM > To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> > Cc: SO-AC Chairs List <soac-chairs@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [soac-chairs] Draft Statement SSR2 > > Katrina - interesting perspective. The reason why I was suggesting those words is for exactly that reason - that accepting responsibility means the board is giving us the responsibility. I believe those words should go into the bylaws should they be adjusted. Tasking, in my opinion, is a less authoritative word and simply assigns a task with a defined goal. Responsibility is greater. Not that I disagree that that may happen but it needs to be in the bylaws. > > Anyway, just my opinion. > > Tripti > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:07 PM Katrina Sataki < katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: > Dear All, > > I am not sure about “consider ourselves tasked” as this might (again) raise questions on the Board’s authority. Maybe “recognise our responsibility as stated in the Bylaws” or something if “accept responsibility” does not work here? > Agree with other proposed edits. > > ]{atrina > > > From: <soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto: soac-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu <mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>> > Date: Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 13:43 > To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto: haforrestesq@gmail.com>> > Cc: SO-AC Chairs List <soac-chairs@icann.org<mailto: soac-chairs@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [soac-chairs] Draft Statement SSR2 > > All, > > I am adding a recommended edit included below. Thanks. > > - Tripti > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Heather Forrest < haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> wrote: > Thanks Patrick, James. Pleased to join you all (albeit a few hours prematurely) on this list. > > I have suggested 2 edits in-line below for the group's consideration. Nb in addition I have added a hyphen in 'follow-on'. > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Patrik Fältström < paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> wrote: > Good! > > We should remember to add people to this list when we rotate them in. They then remove us when they feel to :-) > > Welcome Heather! > > Patrik > > On 1 Nov 2017, at 9:35, James M. Bladel wrote: > >> And, for the avoidance of doubt, I’ve asked Staff to add Heather to this list, so I can stop forgetting to manually cc: her. She will instruct Staff when I need to be dropped. :) >> >> Thanks - >> >> J. >> -------------- >> James Bladel >> GoDaddy >> >> On Nov 1, 2017, 09:31 +0400, James M. Bladel < jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, wrote: >> As discussed (below). let’s make this better. >> >> STATEMENT FROM SO/AC CHAIRS ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY REVIEW >> >> The Chairs of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) acknowledge the 27 October 2017 announcement from the Board of Directors, pausing the work of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2-RT), and tasking the SOs and ACs to address concerns raised by the Board, Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and others [HF: I propose deleting 'and others', and suggest we stick to the documented statements of concern rather than give credence to the Board's having acted based on casually made statements]. >> >> Collectively, we accept responsibility [Tripti: I recommend replacing "accept responsibility" with "consider ourselves tasked"] for getting SSR2-RT back on track and [HF: is it helpful/necessary to include the phrase 'back on track and'? Can we not just at this point look to 'restarted as expeditiously as possible'?] restarted as expeditiously as possible. During various sessions throughout ICANN60, our groups have met with the board and/or members of SSR2-RT to hear their concerns. We intend to consult with our respective communities, and each other, to address these issues relating to the scope, composition and participation, resource utilization, and overall work plan of the Review. >> >> Additionally, this incident has raised questions that affect the independence of SSR2-RT, and specific reviews going forward. As a follow-on effort, we intend to examine the selection & scoping process for review teams, and develop a clear and predictable process for raising and addressing concerns for active review teams already underway. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Board, SSR2 and the broader community on this task. >> >> [Signatures] >> Alan, Patrik, Katrina, Thomas (GAC outgoing), Manal (GAC incoming), James (GNSO outgoing), Heather (GNSO incoming), Tripti, Brad, (Etc.) >> >> Thanks - >> >> J. >> -------------- >> James Bladel >> GoDaddy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> soac-chairs mailing list >> soac-chairs@icann.org<mailto:soac-chairs@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > soac-chairs mailing list > soac-chairs@icann.org<mailto:soac-chairs@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs > > _______________________________________________ soac-chairs mailing list soac-chairs@icann.org<mailto:s oac-chairs@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > soac-chairs mailing list > soac-chairs@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs _______________________________________________ soac-chairs mailing list soac-chairs@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs
_______________________________________________ soac-chairs mailing list soac-chairs@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs
_______________________________________________ soac-chairs mailing list soac-chairs@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council