October 2019 - Ssr2-review - lists.icann.org

Prioritization and consensus on recommendations
by Jennifer Bryce Oct. 8, 2019

Oct. 8, 2019

Dear SSR2 Review Team, For your reference: As you work towards publication of your draft report, we would like to remind you of the following Bylaws requirements with regards to recommendations contained in the draft report. As there was some discussion on the 25 September<https://community.icann.org/x/eYPkBg> plenary call with regards to how the team intends to obtain consensus on the draft text, we’ve also included information from the SSR2 terms of reference document on this matter, for reference. ICANN Bylaws text regarding recommendations Section 4.6(a)(vii)(A) of the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> states the following: “(A) Each report of the review team shall describe the degree of consensus or agreement reached by the review team on each recommendation contained in such report. Any member of a review team not in favor of a recommendation of its review team (whether as a result of voting against a matter or objecting to the consensus position) may record a minority dissent to such recommendation, which shall be included in the report of the review team. The review team shall attempt to prioritize each of its recommendations and provide a rationale for such prioritization.” SSR2 Consensus Methodology The SSR2 Review Team terms of reference<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Terms+of+Reference?preview=/6606113…> includes to following text: “In accordance with this article of the Bylaws [Section 4.6.(a)(iii)] the SSR2-RT has agreed, by consensus, that it will strive to make its decisions on a consensus basis. This means that all Team members agree on a position, or only a small minority of Team members disagree, but most agree. To the extent that the SSR2-RT is unable to achieve consensus with respect to any recommendations, its reports and recommendations will include minority views. The nature and use of consensus and minority views are informed by the ‘GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-…>’.“ Section 3.6 ‘Standard Methodology for Making Decisions’ of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-…> outlines the recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations (see pages 15 - 18). Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce MSSI Associate Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

1 0

for SSR2 team member review and edit
by Denise Michel Oct. 4, 2019

Oct. 4, 2019

Per the SSR2 team’s conversation, below is a first draft of comments on the proposed implementation of the CCT Review (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-implementation-plan-2019-09-11…) Red-line comments are welcome by Oct. 8 and Mr. Matogoro and I will work on an updated draft. Regards, Denise Denise Michel denisemichel(a)fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> **DRAFT ** SSR2 Team comments on the ICANN draft implementation plan for CCT review recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Board’s draft implementation plan for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review, 2019. The SSR2 applauds and thanks the members of the CCT Review who worked tirelessly over a three year period to produce their final report. The report clearly documents issues relating to competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, and presents focused recommendations aimed at driving ICANN to make key improvements. Several recommendations made by the CCT team are relevant to the work of the SSR2 review. We will, however, take this opportunity to comment on the role of community reviews and how the ICANN Board and staff approach reveiws. The SSR2 takes this opportunity, again, to express its concern and disappointment that the Board chose to accept only six out of the 35 recommendations contained in the CCT report. Prior to the IANA transition, the Board accepted all recommendations of community review teams (ATRT, WHOIS/RDS, SSR) and these reviews were intended to be the key tool for transparency and accountability in the post-transition ICANN. With the first community review post-transition, the CCT Review, however, the Board took a surprisingly different approach to community reviews and has not accepted a majority of the CCT Review’s recommendations. Aside from the substantive implications, the SSR2 Review team is concerned about the implications this has for the Board’s treatment of the RDS and SSR2 Review reports, as well as for the integrity of the community review process overall. Only these six accepted CCT recommendations are mentioned in the draft implementation plan. The Board resolution (2019.03.01.03) directs staff to plan for the implementation of ‘accepted recommendations’. It remains unclear what is planned for the 17 recommendations marked as ‘pending’ The only hint comes at resolution 2019.03.01.04, where the Board ‘directs the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s) to provide the Board relevant information, as requested in the Scorecard, and advise if additional time is needed within six months from this Board action.’ (emphasis added). The implementation plan was published on 23 August 2019, and in relation to the pending recommendation notes (p22) that ICANN Org is to advise if additional time is needed by 1 September (a week after publication of the implementation plan). The draft gives no indication as to whether such requests are anticipated. It gives no timeframe for implementation, nor does it provide an update on the status of the ICANN org investigations or activity of ‘pending’ resolutions. These are important and should be immediately, publicly provided. Following the SSR2 team’s meetings with Board members and CCT Review team members in Kobe, and subsequent written updates, the SSR2 team was told that the Board’s response to the CCT Review recommendations and its rationale for failing to adopt the majority of the recommendations was: * Impact on the ICANN budget * A need for community developed definitions of key terms (such as ‘DNS Abuse’) * A need for further research by ICANN org to understand issues, such as the value of publicly available data * Certain recommendations were properly directed to stakeholders other than the ICANN Board, including the community or staff. In the SSR2 Team’s opinion, the above reasons are should not be used to delay Board acceptance or staff action. The CCT Review team kept the community and the Board updated throughout the period of its review. However, the Board provided no feedback to the CCT on possible issues (budgetary or otherwise) at the time when the CCT was developing the recommendations. The correct response to budgetary concerns (based on past Board action) would have been for the Board to approve the recommendations and note that implementation would begin in the new fiscal year. The CCT Report references community-developed definitions to ‘DNS Abuse’ and ‘DNS Security Abuse’[1], which have been in place for a decade. There is no excuse to delay implementation of CCT recommendations pending further definitional work on DNS Abuse. If further analysis were really required, the correct response would have been for the Board to use the six month period between receipt of the report (March 2019) and publication of its response (June 2019), to conduct due diligence and investigate ways to implement the recommendations, or raise questions and concerns with the relevant parties. Where recommendations are directed at other groups, the proper response (based on past Board action) would have been for the Board to adopt the recommendations, note that a PDP (or other appropriate action) is required, and send the recommendation to the responsible entity with a request for expedited consideration/action. None of the above steps were taken. The Board’s response to the CCT Review came as a shock to the CCT Review team and to the community, and it was especially demoralizing for members of other community reviews, such as the SSR2. We are now deeply concerned that our years of volunteer effort on behalf of the ICANN community will be similarly wasted and disrespected. Whether by intent or by poor communication, the Board response to the CCT Review raises concerns among the SSR2 membership that the ‘pending’ status was adopted as a means for ICANN to avoid implementing the majority of CCT recommendations. Aside from the demoralizing effect on SSR2 members, the Board’s attitude to specific review recommendations should raise red flags among the ICANN community. The specific reviews are the most tangible mechanism to provide accountability for the ICANN Board and Staff to the ICANN multistakeholder community. The reviews evolved from the Affirmation of Commitments between the United States and ICANN and were inserted into the ICANN Bylaws as part of the IANA transition. In the opinion of the SSR2 Review Team, the expectation would be that, absent compelling justification, the Board would accept all the recommendations in specific reviews. Of greater concern is the message the Board’s actions send to external audiences, including those who are sceptical of the value of multistakeholder processes following the IANA transition. The specific reviews are failing as an accountability mechanism, leaving the Board and ICANN Org free from external or internal constraints. ________________________________ [1] The CCT final report adopts the following, community-developed definitions for DNS Abuse and DNS Security Abuse: “DNS Abuse” is a term used by the Review Team that refers to “intentionally deceptive, conniving, or unsolicited activities that actively make use of the DNS and/or the procedures used to register domain names” (see p. 3 of the “New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse: Revised Report”). “DNS Security Abuse” in the context of this report refers to specific, technical forms of abusive behavior: malware distribution, phishing, pharming, botnet command-and-control, and spam in the DNS. For more on how abuse has been characterized by the ICANN Community, see the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group’s Final Report (29 May 2010). The glossary to the CCT report also reflects those definitions.

5 5

Call summary: SSR2 2 October
by Jennifer Bryce Oct. 3, 2019

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear SSR2 RT members, Please find attached the plenary call report for SSR2 meeting #85, 2 October 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help SSR2 Review Team members navigate through the content of the call. They are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/upICBw. The transcript usually becomes available 5 - 7 business days after the meeting. Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce MSSI Associate Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Re: [Ssr2-review] [EXT] Re: for SSR2 team member review and edit
by Barrett, Kerry-Ann Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear team I’m traveling back from trinidad tomorrow so won’t be able to join the call. Apologies Sincerely, Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Policy Specialist Organization of American States On Oct 1, 2019, at 11:49 PM, Matogoro Jabera <jaberamatogoro(a)gmail.com<mailto:jaberamatogoro@gmail.com>> wrote: CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Russ, I support the phrasing as it was given in our comment. If budget is the main constrain then the board could approve the recommendation BUT the implementation could remain pending up to next budget when fund will be made available. We could also give a paragraph analysing the approved, pending and rejected recommendations. It could happen that the approved recommendations favour a certain group at ICANN ecosystem. So it is better also to give a small highlights on these. Regards, Matogoro On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 01:11 Russ Housley, <housley(a)vigilsec.com<mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote: Denise and Matogoro: I have some concern with this one sentence: The correct response to budgetary concerns (based on past Board action) would have been for the Board to approve the recommendations and note that implementation would begin in the new fiscal year. I agree with the direction that this is going, but I think it would be better for the Board action to include the implementation of the recommendation in the proposed budget for the following fiscal year, and then have the community review process of the budget determine whether or not the necessary funds are allocated. Russ _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review(a)icann.org<mailto:Ssr2-review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review _______________________________________________ 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.

2 1

SSR2 agenda 2 October 2019
by Jennifer Bryce Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear SSR2 RT members, Below is the agenda for the next SSR2 plenary call, scheduled for Wednesday 2 October at 14:00 UTC. 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI updates 2. Face-to-face meeting in Washington, D.C. 16 - 17 January - team members should have received travel welcome email 3. ICANN66 in Montreal dates for team calendar (invites have been sent) * 1 - 2 November: Face-to-face meeting (all day) * 4 November: Community engagement session (15:15 - 16:45 local time | 20:15 - 21:45 UTC) 4. Team to raise any thoughts/questions/concerns with Compliance subteam recommendations (see p30 - 38 in recommendations document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10KOW2F6oqR3OdV7hfuWmnYo6gtE0d0wOZHOQzXm…>) 5. CCT Implementation Plan posted for public comment [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> - team to share any comments on list 6. AOB 7. Confirm action items, decisions reached Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce MSSI Associate Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

1 0