January 2020 - Ssr2-review - lists.icann.org

Call summary: SSR2 22 January
by Jennifer Bryce Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Dear SSR2 RT members, Please find attached the plenary call report for SSR2 meeting #96, 8 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC. As the action items were not read for the record, please let me know if you believe something is not captured correctly. 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/JwJhBw. 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

Executive Summary and other changes
by Heather Flanagan Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Hello Review Team members, As agreed to on today’s call, I have made the following changes in both the marked up and clean copy of the document: 1. Drafted an executive summary for the public comment period version of the report that explains the reports limitations and what we’re looking for in terms of feedback. For ease of review, a copy of the proposed executive summary is included at the end of this message. 2. Regarding the summary table: 2a. I changed the summary table to remove the workstream data 2b. I adjusted the priorities to High for everything marked “High+” (aka, in the upper right quadrant of the chart in our prioritization analysis) and Medium for everything marked “High-“ (with the exceptions of 20, 21, 25, and 26 - those were moved to “High”) 2c. I moved the mapping to the strategic goals and objectives from the summary table to a separate table in an Appendix (now Appendix G). 2d. And I added a column for “To” to indicate the placeholder column where we will indicate who is being asked to perform the recommendation (again, I’m following the model of the the CCT report, which uses the word “To” for this column). 2e. I will be, before COB (UTC-8) time, add back the detail into the table so that the table is self contained with regards to recommendations. If you would like to suggest changes, particularly to the executive summary, please go to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10U0rR1bPIQo-OSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-tyW/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10U0rR1bPIQo-OSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-tyW/edit#> ----- Draft Executive Summary: This report is an early draft of the findings and recommendations from the SSR2 Review Team. There are several items that the SSR2 RT continues to iterate on, but overall the review team believes the report is at a point where public feedback would provide useful and critical input to inform the final report. In particular, the SSR2 RT would appreciate feedback on: which part of ICANN (e.g., the Board, ICANN org, or the ICANN community) should address each recommendation; what metrics would be most appropriate to make each recommendation measurable, while avoiding over engineering the solution; what priority you would give each recommendation; any particular reports or other material you feel the review team should consider before completing their recommendations. There will be a second public comment period solicit feedback on the final report.

1 0

Updates complete - draft ready for consideration for public comment
by Heather Flanagan Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Hello all, First, some instructions for Jennifer: Please change the permissions on “SSR2 DRAFT report - recs and findings (first pass)“ (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PAG8kh4Jg_6BNMbkqebVpyqebw5mPjXr3ie-4rg… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PAG8kh4Jg_6BNMbkqebVpyqebw5mPjXr3ie-4rg…>) to read-only. No one should be making changes in that document any longer (but we will probably want it for reference, so don’t remove it). If possible, please change the permissions on “SSR2 Draft report - Proposed Public Comment.docx” to comment only. No one should be making changes to that document, either. (Given it’s an uploaded word doc, I don’t know if this is actually possible). Now, for everyone else: I have done some pretty major work on this document. In particular: 1. The summary table is now just a summary of one-line per recommendation. 2. Each individual recommendation is numbered in the body of the text (this was a request during the SME review, and think it helps the document overall). 3. The Abuse/Compliance section has been significantly restructured, with quite a bit of research material moved to Appendix E. 4. Many citations have been added (though we are still missing some). What’s missing: An executive summary. I can draft one, but not before our call. I am not sure if we need it, though, for the public comment period. The NEW marked up copy is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10U0rR1bPIQo-OSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-tyW/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10U0rR1bPIQo-OSOqLpYGWDXmNGFX-tyW/edit#> The CLEAN version is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iadFzdUkZTeayDHjz7oA_3YouGfdUBh6/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iadFzdUkZTeayDHjz7oA_3YouGfdUBh6/edit> I hope you find the document much more readable. For those of you keeping score, it’s now about 20 pages shorter than what we looked at last week (that’s mostly because of what I did to the summary table, plus about 4 pages of material that I moved into the Appendix. I look forward to your feedback on tomorrow’s call. Heather

5 4

SSR2 agenda 22 January 2020
by Jennifer Bryce Jan. 20, 2020

Jan. 20, 2020

Dear SSR2 RT members, Below is the agenda for the next SSR2 plenary call, scheduled for Wednesday 22 January at 15:00 - 17:00 UTC. Please note the extended call time. 1. Welcome, roll call, SOI updates 2. Finalize draft report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PAG8kh4Jg_6BNMbkqebVpyqebw5mPjXr3ie-4rg…> for public comment 3. AOB 4. 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

Key rollover
by ALAIN AINA Jan. 19, 2020

Jan. 19, 2020

Hi Eric and al Do we have evidence to back the statement below ? ==== The review team found no evidence that the propagation delay between publication to each of the letters, and then to each of a letter’s instances, is well l understood. However, propagation delay was an SSR issue as recently as the 2018 KSK rollover, when some instances were observed not to update as fast as others. ==== We need evidence and should understand when did this happen during the key rollover process and see the the relationship to the key rollover changes to the root zone. and also evaluate the impact it had. Was this due to the key rollover or just normal failure of the RSS to compliant to the service accuracy obligation in RSSAC001? ==== Recommendations: Formal Procedures for Key Rollovers This recommendation is broken down into two parts: implement existing recommendations (part 1), and additional recommendation (part2). Part 1: ICANN org should implement the recommendations from SAC063 and SAC073. ===== SSAC063 was considered by the design team who developed the KSK rollover Plan (https://www.iana.org/reports/2016/root-ksk-rollover-design-20160307.pdf) and SSAC073 was just SSAC comment on the design team interim report. So i wonder if this part is really needed. As for the part2(below), as discussed during the last meeting i support referring to the document on “ Proposal for Future Root Zone KSK Rollovers “ which only addresses the issues of scheduling and implementing future KSK lifecycle and which is under public comment…(*) Something around this: "ICANN org should based on lessons learnt from 2017/2018 KSK rollover and beyond the effort to document "the scheduling and implementing a future KSK lifecycle", establish…..” ====== Part 2: ICANN org should establish a formal procedure, supported by a formal process modeling tool and language to specify the details of future key rollovers, including decision points, exception legs, the full control-flow, etc. Verification of the key rollover process should include posting the programmatic procedure (e.g., program, FSM) for public comment, and community feedback should be incorporated. The process should have empirically verifiable acceptance criteria at each stage, which should be fulfilled for the process to continue. This process should be reassessed at least as often as the rollover itself (i.e., the same periodicity) so that lessons learned can be used to adjust the process. ICANN org should create a group of stakeholders involving relevant personnel (from ICANN org or the community) to periodically run table-top exercises that follow the Root KSK rollover process. ==== Hope this helps (*) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-future-rz-ksk-rollover… —Alain

3 2

Prioritization
by Weissinger, Laurin Jan. 19, 2020

Jan. 19, 2020

Hi all, See this plot re priority and urgency. It appears to contain most of the information. I have plots deviation, etc but they aren’t really useful. All the best Laurin [cid:84423F20-BDEB-447B-A2D6-2DC5217C302B]

4 3

Link to SSR2 Documents (Live and Archive)
by Naveed Bin Rais Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

Please visit the link to get the documents: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=64076120 Naveed -

1 0

Summary of our LA meeting
by Eric Osterweil Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Hi all, Our LA meeting (from some time ago) covered a lot of important information. Take a look. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aiwB9VjxXNhOqGmaIeHiGIr1zM4uus0B2chUmk3… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aiwB9VjxXNhOqGmaIeHiGIr1zM4uus0B2chUmk3…> Eric

1 0

Abuse definition cites
by Denise Michel Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Once again…. The CCT report itself defines both DNS Abuse and DNS Security Abuse, citing with approval at p 8, fn 11 definitions contained in an ICANN Staff document called “Safeguards against DNS Abuse 18 June 2016” The community Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP) in 2010 ‘developed a consensus definition of abuse' which reads: Abuse is an action that: a) causes actual and substantial harm, or is a material predicate of harm, and b) Is illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise contrary to the intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such purpose is disclosed. (This definition is cited with approval on page 88, footnote 287 of the CCT final report) This definition has been operational within ICANN for many years and can be referenced by SSR2. Additional citations are below. Best, Denise GNSO Resolution on the Initiation of the RAPWG: Adopted on: 19 February 2009 Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy". Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report. Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse. Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City vote. http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#200902<https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#200902> Working Group Charter: Adopted on: 19 February 2009 · http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/rap-charter-07july09.html<https://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/rap-charter-07july09.html> Working Group Initial Report: Submitted on: 12 February 2010 · Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap-wg-initial-report-12feb10-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap-wg-initial-report-12feb10-en.pdf> · Public Comment: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/rap-initial-report-12feb10-en.h… Working Group Final Report: Submitted on: 29 May 2010 · Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> · Public Comment: not applicable Implementation Drafting Team Report: Submitted on: 15 November 2010 · Report: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf> · Public Comment: not applicable GNSO Adoption of the Final Report: Adopted on: 03 February 2011 · Summary: On 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council created the first motion to address the recommendations of the RAPWG Final Report, which included amongst others….[see link for full details] · http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201102<https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201102> GNSO Adoption of the Final Report: Adopted on: 06 October 2011 · Summary: On 6 October 2011 the GNSO Council created a second motion to address the remaining recommendations of the RAPWG Final Report, which included amongst others….[see link for full details] · http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201110<https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201110> GNSO Adoption of the Final Report: Adopted on: 15 December 2011 · Summary: On 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council created a third motion to address the recommendations of the RAPWG Final Report, specifically addressing the UDRP Review recommendation….[see link for full details] · http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201112<https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201112> Implementation Details incldue: · Best Practices Discussion Paper on Registration Abuse Policies<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28…>

1 0

Observations from SMEs
by Jennifer Bryce Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear all, As Steve mentioned, here is the list of recommendations and observations from SMEs. 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