Dear RT, Whenever I got stucked, I always re-read this announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en In most case I also go through identified responsibilities: *Responsibilities* 1. Participate in creation of review team governance documents, such as the terms of reference, scope of the review and the timeline; 2. Review implementation of the first SSR Review Team's recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board; 3. Select appropriate performance indicators and benchmarks, including considering those recommended [PDF, 1.16 MB] by the first SSR Review Team, and those on which data has already been collected; 4. Apply best practices designed to simplify and increase the effectiveness of Reviews as expressed in Reviews Policies, Procedures and Guidelines1 ; 5. Consider public, community and Board input and incorporate it as appropriate in Review Team recommendations; 6. Determine whether additional data or analysis is needed and participate in an ensuing provider selection, if necessary; 7. Provide timely updates to the community on the status of the Review Team's work; 8. Analyze findings; 9. Draw conclusions based on findings, develop useful and feasible recommendations; 10. Provide guidance on prioritization of recommendations and definition of desired outcomes; 11. Provide draft conclusions for input from community, staff and Board; 12. Deliver a final Review Team report; 13. Designate Review Team members to participate in the implementation planning work that follows the delivery of the final Review Team report. We are getting confusing always because ICANN announcement is not specific, very vague and offering rooms for any one especially ICANN Board or ICANN Staff to control this matter the way they wish. I am still calling for a specific scope to guide this team from SO/AC chairs as they are working to unpause the process. I have supported in our meeting that, let us share what we have so far in term of scope and receive feedback from SO/AC and other ICANN community. Regards, Matogoro On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
Scope of the Review
We have been requested as part of the final actions of this review team before the requested pause takes effect to offer some comments about the scope of this review.
The fine level details of the scope of this review are, quite properly, the topic for the resumed review team, and it would be inappropriate for us to prejudge that effort, particularly as we understand that there will be an augmented team and potentially some changes in focus and timeline.
We would like to offer some general comments about the choices in the approach to scope that we hope will be helpful to the SO and AC chairs in considering the parameters associated with resuming this effort:
Breadth vs Depth: We believe that it is more helpful to look at breadth in such a review, and look at the broader aspects security, stability and resiliency rather then dive into depth in one or two issues
Capability vs Behaviours: We believe that is 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 prescriptive as to how ICANN should respond to particular circumstances
Competence vs Cases: We believe that it is more helpful to review the levels of awareness of security and security rather than perform a detailed [..]
We hope this is helpful to your efforts to […]
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
-- MATOGORO Jabhera Assistant Lecturer & Coordinator - Microsoft Innovation Center, Tanzania College of Informatics and Virtual Education The University of Dodoma (www.udom.ac.tz)