Thanks Ken,

Section 5: detection and mitigation.  We will likely remove this section from the document.  Since we are focusing more on describing rogue actions and leaving observation and determination of rogue-ness up to the future governing body, this is not strictly necessary.

I agree with removing this. Though perhaps it signals a need to have a more robust research and response at some point in the future. Keeping it out for now seems like the right approach for this WG.

1. We ask WP participants or *any* RSSAC Caucus members to contribute thoughts (to mail list or in the google doc as comments or suggestions) on what a Recommendation or Conclusion section would look like or contain.

Is there a deadline for comments and feedback?

Thanks and apologies for missing today's meeting,

-Mallory

 

Link to WP document:

 

                https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XS2dIl_Sv1f7e4pA19QHnHEmLgRSkgEI2-zD7Tp0hog/edit#

 

 

 

Ken Renard

S&TCD Contractor – ICF

Sustaining Base Network Assurance Branch 

C5ISR Center, Space and Terrestrial Communications Directorate

Office:  443-395-7809

kenneth.d.renard.ctr@mail.mil

 

_______________________________________________
rssac-caucus mailing list
rssac-caucus@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780