October 2017 - Ssr2-review - lists.icann.org

Document requests for IANA subteam
by James Gannon Oct. 9, 2017

Oct. 9, 2017

Hi All, Just following up on the IANA sub team items, we would like to formalise the document requests from our Trello tasks here into a request for the following documentation, as identified in our meetings with PTI staff in Jo’burg: * Business continuity plan for PTI. * Plan for migration * What kind of failure rollover documentation do you have. Day-to-day. Failure rollover. * Processes and training. * A presentation on training and processes documents to a good level of detail. To replace seeing the docs themselves. * Documented evidence of business continuity test (if it exists) * A high-level walk through of RZMS, from perspective of cc and gTLDs (to clarify issues) * Field verification of RZMS – presentation on controls within the RZMS system * Documentation that identifies procedures for verifying authorized contact. * Presentation on relationship between PTI, ICANN and the root zone maintainer, post-transition (with roles and responsibilities, who works where, who have authority) -James

1 0

Reminder - Action Required Today - SSR2 Plenary Call Thursday, 12 October - Doodle Poll
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 8, 2017

Oct. 8, 2017

Hi SSR2 - Good day. Friendly reminder to kindly fill out the doodle poll below with your availability for an SSR2 Plenary Call this week on Thursday, 12 October 2017 - thank you! Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image001.png@01D34028.325C5DE0] From: Yvette Guigneaux Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 3:17 PM To: 'SSR2' <SSR2-review(a)icann.org> Subject: Action Required Today - SSR2 Plenary Call Thursday, 12 October - Doodle Poll Hi All - Good day. Below is a doodle poll link for availability for an SSR2 Plenary call - Thursday, 12 October - as the usual Tuesday Plenary call was cancelled due to the ICANN SSR meeting in Los Angeles - please advise on your availability. Doodle Link: http://doodle.com/poll/nkqvmpfy8pgs8utd | Poll closes: Wednesday, 11 October @ 19:00 UTC. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image001.png@01D34028.325C5DE0]

1 0

ICANN Board's Input and Comments to ICANN SSR Subteam Scope of Work for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2)
by Registrar Oct. 7, 2017

Oct. 7, 2017

Subject: ICANN Board's Input and Comments to ICANN SSR Subteam Scope of Work for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2) Date: 6 October 2017 From: Denise Michel and Eric Osterweil, Co-Chairs, SSR2 To: Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors Cc: Cherine Chalaby, Vice Chair, ICANN Board of Directors Dear Steve, As Co-Chairs of the second Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2), we are responding to the Board’s letter of 3 October. Several of our members are currently or shortly to be in transit to Los Angeles for the scheduled fact-finding workshop with staff on October 9-10. Our response is therefore brief at this stage; we intend to follow this letter with more discussion after the workshop and additional correspondence. The SSR2 gains its mandate from ICANN’s new Bylaws<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Mandate>, adopted following the IANA transition. SSR2 is one of the required “community reviews” that are intended to provide increased accountability and transparency of ICANN to its community for key aspects of ICANN’s performance of its mission, through independent reviews performed by volunteers from across ICANN’s diverse community. The SSR2’s terms of reference<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Terms+of+Reference> (TOR), adopted on 4 May 2017, are closely modelled on the language of the ICANN Bylaws, which mandate community reviews, and follow the template provided by ICANN Staff and used by previous review teams. Those terms of reference were discussed by the entire Review Team and adopted by majority consensus, have been publicly available since 4 May 2017, and were communicated to the Board by email by the SSR2’s Co-Chairs on 11 May 2017. The Review Team’s work plan<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=64075835&preview=/…> and timeline<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IUKMvoaomSqoY0quZBjdQ3cOK5Wsw2hDgBW…>, and sub-group activities<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Subgroups> flow from those terms of reference and also have been publicly discussed and available since their publication months ago. The Board will note the SSR2 sub-group’s fact-finding mission at ICANN headquarters in part addresses SSR2’s obligation under Bylaws 4.6(c)(i) and 4.6(c)(iii): 4.6(c)(i) “ICANN's execution of its commitment to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and global interoperability of the systems and processes, both internal and external, that directly affect and/or are affected by the Internet's system of unique identifiers…,” and 4.6(c)(iii) “The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which ICANN has successfully implemented its security efforts, the effectiveness of the security efforts to deal with actual and potential challenges and threats to the security and stability of the DNS, and the extent to which the security efforts are sufficiently robust to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, consistent with ICANN's Mission.” This fact-finding mission also will, in part, investigate the fulfilment of SSR1 recommendations<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/SSR1+Review+Implementation+Home> 17, 25, 26, 27, and 28, as is our explicit mandate. Moreover, the Review Team’s interest in these matters also relates to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee’s (SSAC’s) documented recommendations, and the extent to which they have been adopted by ICANN, in SAC-074<https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> [en<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-074-en.pdf>]. While we note the Board’s anxiety about the risks of exceeding the SSR2’s scope, it’s important to note that the Review Team adopted the following directive as part of its ToR in May (emphasis add): The scope of the SSR2 as mandated by ICANN’s Bylaws are cast in broad terms. The SSR2 discussed the potential risk of over-reach at great length, and through majority consensus made the specific provision in its Terms of Reference as follows (emphasis added): In order to understand the security, stability, and resiliency importance of the ICANN identifier space (the elements that are within ICANN’s authoritative scope), the SSR2 Review Team will consider the issues in its entirety including inter-connected functions. The SSR2 Review Team may, therefore, review, discuss and seek advice from varying stakeholders in the community including those entities providing specific functions on behalf of ICANN to ensure that any recommendations provided takes into account the most complete reflection of the operational reality of ICANN. However, the SSR2 Review Team will then focus its recommendations on those efforts, issues, policies, systems, and identifiers that are clearly within ICANN’s scope and remit. We request more information on what seems to be the Board’s contention that responsibilities of the ICANN Organisation should be off-limits to community reviews, as that is not the understanding or position of a majority of the Review Team. We look forward to discussing this with the full Board at ICANN 60. Meanwhile, since there is such short time remaining before the LA meeting on 9 October, and considerable time and resources have been expended by both the volunteer team members and the ICANN organisation in its preparation, we will complete that fact-finding mission. We look forward to discussing these and related issues during the Review Team’s meeting with the Board at ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi.

2 1

Planned Workshop in LA
by Boban Krsic Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Dear Kaveh and ICANN Board, On behalf of the ICANN SSR subgroup of the SSR2 review team we acknowledge your communication of Wednesday 4th October referring to the concerns of the board about the scope of activities. We welcome a constructive dialogue with the board on these scope concerns, however given the time pressures that the subgroup is under to execute our work plan at the F2F workshop in Los Angeles we respectively submit that the most efficient manner for us to resolve these concerns would be with an extended dialogue with the Board or the board caucus group in Abu Dhabi. We intend to continue with our LA workshop as planned, as this is a critical information gathering exercise, we will then enter into a good faith dialogue to address the boards concerns both in Abu Dhabi or through any other alternative times that may be available. We hope to come to mutual understanding on the outputs and eventual recommendations that will be drafted as a result of this workshop. Regards, Boban Krsic on behalf of the ICANN SSR Subgroup.

4 4

Action Item 80b: Responses to questions
by Jennifer Bryce Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Dear all, Re: Tracker item 80b: “Provide responses to questions from SSR1 briefings (Ops + Finance)”. Please see below for responses to outstanding questions. Note we are still seeking clarification from the Review Team (requested via email<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-August/000576.html>, 30 August) to question 2. The complete list of questions and answers, along with a link to the briefing materials, can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15g9bz4h57wC9LmNltKLarLRGhJdztnCBzDGtWmB… 1. To what extent do you work with the relevant standards bodies (UNICODE and the IETF) over the issues with the use of IDNs and longer label TLDs? Staff from the ICANN organization commonly participate in both IETF and UNICODE meetings. In the context of Universal Acceptance, as the community commonly refers to the issues described in this question, the ICANN Community created the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) which is supported by the ICANN organization. The UASG has its mission to raise awareness and facilitate resolution of Universal Acceptance issues. The ICANN organization is committed to support the efforts of the community through the UASG. 1. There are many challenges in IDN WHOIS lookups. How do we get an accurate IDN WHOIS database for the Incident Handling process? Question requires clarification from Review Team. 1. Can GDD comment on the failures of both SLAM and EBERO where they apply to RSP failure scenarios? Per the Base Registry Agreement<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…>, the EBERO process is defined in the Registry Transition Processes<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-processes-2013-04-22-en>, one of the main objectives of the EBERO program is to minimize impact on registrants and gTLD users. As of 25 August 2017, we have seen 32 cases in which a service of a gTLD reached one of the emergency thresholds. Of those, 10 cases occurred pre-sunrise, 8 during sunrise, 5 before general availability, and 9 during general availability. The 32 cases involved a total of 211.7k active names at the second level at the time of the cases. The top-five cases in term of registrations that reached emergency thresholds had 211k active domains at the time of cases. Four of those cases happened in 2017. In all of the cases since 2015 the registry operators received compliance notices requiring an explanation of the issue, a root cause analysis and actions required to ensure the same issue would not be repeated. During the emergency, the ICANN organization was in contact with the affected registry/registry service provider to understand the problem at hand. The ICANN organization made a determination that it was going to be faster and had less impact on security and stability to let the current registry/registry service provider to fix the underlying issue than to execute the EBERO transition. Therefore, considering the impact to registrants and users, it was determined the best course of action to not execute an EBERO transition on those cases. 1. Implementation of EBERO testing took 3 years from implementation of the first new gTLD delegation. No security review of the EBEROs has ever taken place. What is the justification for that? The Base Registry Agreement does not specify a review for the EBERO program and it does not require periodic testing. However, since the launch of the new gTLDs and the EBERO program, the ICANN organization has worked with its three EBERO providers to ensure the program is ready to act, should the need arise. Specifically, the EBERO contract requires annual inspection of each of the EBERO providers. Additionally, the ICANN organization has worked with each of their EBERO providers to conduct a full EBERO exercise with a real TLD. These full EBERO exercises have taken advantage of gTLDs that have requested voluntary termination. The ICANN organization obtained consent from the registries to execute these exercises just before the TLD is removed from the root zone. These exercises involved executing the whole set of EBERO activities from the (simulated) failure of a TLD service, to full recovery of the TLD services in the EBERO, including the update of the root zone. Each of the exercises have been successful and provided validation of the readiness of the EBERO program. 1. Can Francisco brief us on both systems (EBERO and SLAM) from an SSR2 perspective (Rather than the SSR1 implementation perspective)? The ICANN organization will be happy to answer other questions you may have to enable the work of SSR2. -- Jennifer Bryce Senior Reviews Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

2 1

Updated: LA meeting agenda
by Jennifer Bryce Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Hi all, Please note minor updates to the ICANN SSR subgroup LA meeting agenda. The latest version is attached here. Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce Senior Reviews Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

1 0

FYI ICANN 60 draft schedule
by Denise Michel Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Hi, All. Attached is a draft schedule for ICANN60, FYI. I believe a final schedule is to be posted on icann.org next week. Best, Denise Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel(a)fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>

1 0

Board letter on Subgroup 2's scope
by Kaveh Ranjbar Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear SSR2 Team, Please find below a letter from the ICANN Board, indicating our concern on scope of Subgroup 2’s audit plan. SSR2 will receive this letter through the standard board communication channel shortly, but in the meantime I thought it is good to share the text with you, since time is of essence. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. All the best, Kaveh. ===== To: SSR2 Team Members The ICANN Board recently examined the proposed work plan for SSR2’s Subteam 2 on ICANN SSR, and has identified some areas of concern to flag for the broader Review Team. The mandate of the SSR2, from the Bylaws, is to perform a review of “ICANN's execution of its commitment to enhance the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and global interoperability of the systems and processes, both internal and external, that directly affect and/or are affected by the Internet's system of unique identifiers that ICANN coordinates.” The SSR2’s working definitions, set out in the Terms of Reference, also affirms the focus of the SSR2’s work on the Internet’s unique identifiers: ·Security – The capacity to protect and prevent misuse of Internet unique identifiers; ·Stability – The capacity to ensure that the Identifier System operates as expected and that users of unique identifiers have confidence that the system operates as expected; ·Resiliency – The capacity of the Identifier System to effectively withstand, tolerate and survive malicious attacks and other disruptive events without disruption or cessation of service. ·Unique Identifiers - ICANN’s technical mission includes helping to coordinate, at the overall level, the allocation of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers: specifically, top-level domain names, blocks of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and autonomous system (AS) numbers allocated to the Regional Internet Registries, and protocol parameters as directed by the IETF. As the Board noted in its 23 June 2017 response to the Terms of Reference, the Board looks forward to providing further input once the SSR2’s work plan is finalized and adopted. While the Board has not yet seen a final work plan for the review as a whole, our examination of the Subgroup 2 work plan on the performance of an audit over general ICANN security issues raised some scope concerns. While we support the community in receiving information necessary to perform a full and meaningful review over ICANN’s SSR commitments, there are portions of the more detailed “audit” plan that do not seem appropriate for in-depth investigation by the subgroup. Maintaining a plan to proceed with detailed assessments of these areas is likely to result in recommendations that are not tethered to the scope of the SSR review, and as such, may not be appropriate for Board acceptance when recommendations are issued. This also can expand the time and resources needed to perform this part of the review. The areas the Board is concerned with are areas that indeed raise important organizational information security and organizational oversight questions. However, these are also areas that are not segregated for community review, and are the responsibility of the ICANN Organization (through the CEO) to perform under the oversight of the ICANN Board. Specifically, we are concerned with 1- Perform an assessment of ICANN's Information Security Management System; 3- Perform a comprehensive assessment of ICANN's Risk Management Methodology and Framework; 5- Perform a comprehensive assessment of internal security, stability and resiliency of ICANN's operation processes and services; and 7- Perform an assessment how effectively ICANN has implemented its processes to ensure compliance regarding REGISTRAR agreement and the consensus policies. The Board also has concerns with two sub-questions under section two: 2.7 Business Continuity Plans (BCP) 2.8 Evaluation of Business Continuity Procedures Understanding, at a high level, the work that ICANN does on many of these fronts could be helpful to give the RT a full picture of ICANN’s work. That is much different from performing detailed assessments or audits of these items. In advance of the Subteam’s visit to the ICANN office in Los Angeles in October 2017, the Subteam is encouraged to focus on narrowing the areas scheduled for fuller assessment to those that are more reasonably tethered to the expected mandate of the SSR2 team. The Board supports an agenda that provides a high-level overview of multiple topics, while also focusing the Subteam’s face-to-face time primarily on those areas which are likely to lead to recommendations that are within the scope of the SSR2’s mandate. The Board requests the SSR2 to revisit the Subteam 2 audit plan, as well as work plans across all the SSR2 Subteams, and provide updates on those plans. For Subteam 2, the Board requests confirmation of the restructuring of its work plan prior to the October 2017 face-to-face meeting. =====

7 7

Re: [Ssr2-review] Email replying to Board
by Barrett, Kerry-Ann Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

And mine Sincerely, Kerry-Ann Barrett Cyber Security Policy Specialist Inter-American Committee against Terrorism Secretariat for Multidimensional Security Organization of American States 1889 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 T. 202-370-4675 F. 202-458-3857 kabarrett(a)oas.org www.oas.org/cyber Register to our distribution list here! -----Original Message----- From: ssr2-review-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 3:35 PM To: Osterweil, Eric <eosterweil(a)verisign.com> Cc: SSR2 Review Team Email List <ssr2-review(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] Email replying to Board It has my support. Jame s > On 5 Oct 2017, at 21:33, Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <SSR2-review(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Team, > > Just to clarify, the intended messaging we want to send to the Board is currently planned to be nothing more than a stop-gap message. Our plan has been to just summarize how we got here, and to defer the important discussion of our path forward to a later time/communication when the team has had a chance to meet, get on the same page, and to vet a detailed/team-centric perspective. > > The idea of postponing the LA meeting comes a little late in the process (as this has been under discussion for months, and we are now just days away, with travel plans made and booked). We, the co-chairs, would like to schedule a full-team plenary meeting to cover this topic ASAP next week (hopefully Weds or Thurs). The rather than trying to tackle all of that right now, can I just ask if this stop-gap message is something that you all are comfortable with us sending (as outlined below) just so the Board has some kind of answer sooner, rather than later? > > Eric > > On 10/5/17, 1:25 PM, "ssr2-review-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of aalain(a)trstech.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I Concur with Geoff. I suggest we look at options to postpone the > LA meeting and convene a call to discuss the board and SSAC concerns > immediately > > Hope this helps > > —Alain > >> On 5 Oct 2017, at 16:39, Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> wrote: >> >> Denise, >> >> Please note in any proposed response that such a response is not based on an unanimous view from all SSR2 Review Team members, and that some individual members of this group have views that differ materially from those expressed in this response and agree with the Board’s stated conceerns. As I have posted already, I happen to share the Board's concerns here (rather than merely ‘noting’ them). >> >> thanks, >> >> Geoff >> >> >> >>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 2:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel(a)fb.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Team Members: >>> >>> As discussed, the co-chairs are preparing a brief email reply to the Board’s latest correspondence regarding the ICANN SSR Subgroup fact-finding meeting in LA Oct 9-10. Because we are so short on time, we’ve outlined the points we’ll make and invite any Team members to provide any comments they may have by COB today (PT). After we send the email, we intend to follow-up with more discussion after the workshop and a more fulsome correspondence to the Board. >>> >>> • SSR mandate from ICANN’s bylaws to provide increased accountability and transparency of ICANN to its community for key aspects of ICANN’s work >>> • SSR2’s terms of reference modelled on bylaws and adopted by majority consensus >>> • Workplan and sub-group efforts flow from ToR >>> • ICANN SSR subgroup’s fact-finding mission at ICANN addresses SSR2’s bylaw obligation. >>> • Note Board concern about risks of exceeding SSR2 scope; Team discussed potential for over-reach while creating ToR, and reinforced Team’s commitment with text on gaining complete understanding of interconnected issues but then ensuring SSR2 recommendations are in-scope. >>> • After subgroup’s Oct 9-10 fact-finding mission, Team will discuss results and next steps. >>> • Look forward to discussing all this with the Board at ICANN 60 >>> and getting more information on Board’s concerns >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> Denise & Eric >>> >>> Denise Michel >>> Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. >>> denisemichel(a)fb.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ssr2-review mailing list >>> Ssr2-review(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review > > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review

3 3

Recent SSR2 status
by Mohamad Amin hasbini Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Hi all, I’ve been monitoring and mostly silent, nevertheless I feel i should share few thought about recent occurrences. While people dived into the deep processes of ICANN and the dozens of ICANN documents, history, trying to define a feasible scope, I do not think this should be the SSR2 main role. We are experts in the infosec field, that is why we were selected. We should help ICANN do the SSR evaluation in the best possible manner. Observations: 1- We do not have full visibility on what is happening at ICANN and partner organizations (we do not work inside, we do not live inside, at least myself) 2- We will not be able to fully grasp what is happening at ICANN and partner organizations, this is not a small organizations being examined. What I think we should do as SSR2: 1- We are not supposed to get hold of all that happens at ICANN. Not even ICANN staff are able to do that and they frequently referred us to different people/employees when we had different questions 2- We should establish a solid evaluation process where we as SSR2 members are not essential. Our main role is to offer our expertise and develop an evaluation process which guarantees integrity and transparency for the community we represent. The process should be repeatable and self-sustainable, our follow-up meetings should be to assure the process is being executed and followed accurately, keeping the ICANN board in full visibility, until ending results are achieved. How should the SSR2 do the above mentioned: One of the main things we need to initiate asap is supporting ICANN to contract an IT/IS risk specialized firm to handle the field work phase, part of the SSR2 roadmap. Why do that? Such an organization will: 1- will be onsite(s) at ICANN, with solid previous experience from hundreds of large clients, structured dedicated staff and a large toolset 2- will be able to consolidate and sharpen the scope of the SSR2 evaluation (including this phase budget) 3- will be able to execute the negotiated scope while reporting to the SSR2 and answering its experts questions and concerns 4- will be accountable to deadlines and integrity issues 5- NDA issues solved? If we’re not doing the field work (we can’t anyway afaik), we have no need to sign any NDAs, the engaged firm would need to do so and that would be absolute standard behavior. What would the SSR2 role be here? As SSR2 members and experts in the field: 1- we would help ICANN negotiate the most efficient and authentic offering 2- we shall be directing the engaged firm into what we think should be prioritized (agreed as a concern with the ICANN board part of the scope) 3- we shall do our best to guarantee the objectivity and integrity of the field work, while continuously reporting results to the ICANN board Final thoughts: The need for SSR2 to hire and monitor for the ICANN SSR evaluation is something i personally mentioned times before, though it did not get much attention, i do not believe the SSR2 members are able to deliver quality Security Stability and Reliability evaluation by themselves for ICANN, not with any of our conditions anyway(different locations, timezones, all have job/family priorities…). Nevertheless i believe the SSR2 group of experts (or what is left of it) will have a much better chance to efficient success, overseeing/guiding the SSR evaluation field execution. Also please do not misunderstand me, SSR2 people are doing very hard work already. While my comments are mainly targeting the SSR2 team, I also hope they are relayed to the board, i represent myself and could be mistaken, apologies for the long message. Regards, Amin KL SSC Brunel

2 1