Words matter. ;) Missing from the note below was the following text that was transmitted to the SO/AC Chairs in Nov. 2017 along with the Team's reaffirmation of our existing scope:
Mindful of the Board’s and Staff’s advice regarding the need for implementable recommendations, the Review Team will strive to provide specific recommendations. Where appropriate, this may require precision, depth or specific examples for recommendations to be actionable by ICANN Org following the review.
Best,
Denise
Hi
During the events cause, the team discussed and seem to have agreed on the following which i think was communicated to the AC/SO chairs.
======
Scope
Breadth vs. Depth: We believe that it is more helpful to look at breadth in such a review, and look at the broader aspects of security, stability and resiliency rather than dive into depth in just a small number of issues.
Capability vs. Behaviours: We believe that it is more helpful in the context of this review to look at the capability of ICANN to manage issues related to security, stability and resilience rather than being overly prescriptive as to how ICANN should respond to particular circumstances that have arisen in the past or may arise in the future.
Perspective vs. Prescription: We believe that it is more helpful to review aspects of institutional awareness and capability of topics related to security, stability, and resiliency, rather than provide a detailed prescription of the appropriate responses to be used in particular cases.
==============
I think we should stick to this subject to comments and suggestions from the new members. Having a common and clear view on how we approach this “review” work is critical
HTH
—Alain
_______________________________________________
Ssr2-review mailing list