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@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>
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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
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@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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
It's Friday and we are suggesting cancelling the workshop which starts Monday? Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Oct 2017, at 19:27, ALAIN AINA <aalain@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@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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
James, all, Am 05.10.17 um 19:35 schrieb James Gannon:
It's Friday and we are suggesting cancelling the workshop which starts Monday?
No, not really - and from my perspective also not necessary. Just take a look on the agenda for the meeting next week that Jennifer circulated this day. All listed topics are related to our scope (and only a subset of the proposed subgroup topics) and we agreed SSR2-internal on this approach to moving forward with the subgroup work. I would rather worry about yesterday's message from SSAC. I have the same viewpoint in many issues and have already expressed this to some team members in the past. We should rather look at the overall situation and how we continue with the SSR2 review. - Boban.
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Oct 2017, at 19:27, ALAIN AINA <aalain@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@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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
-- Boban Kršić Chief Information Security Officer DENIC eG, Kaiserstraße 75-77, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, GERMANY E-Mail: krsic@denic.de, Fon: +49 69 272 35-120, Fax: -248 Mobil: +49 172 67 61 671 https://www.denic.de X.509 Key-ID: 00A54FCB79884413A4 Fingerprint: 9D37 F593 AF9A D766 FAB4 8B88 D49A 2716 PGP Key-ID: 0x43C89BA9 Fingerprint: B974 E725 FEF7 CB3A E452 BEE0 5B80 73E9 43C8 9BA9 Angaben nach § 25a Absatz 1 GenG: DENIC eG (Sitz: Frankfurt am Main) Vorstand: Helga Krüger, Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. Jörg Schweiger Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller Eingetragen unter Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
Thanks, Boban. We’ll address the SSAC letter separately. Best, Denise Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 10/5/17, 11:04 AM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Boban Krsic" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of krsic@denic.de> wrote: James, all, Am 05.10.17 um 19:35 schrieb James Gannon: > It's Friday and we are suggesting cancelling the workshop which starts Monday? No, not really - and from my perspective also not necessary. Just take a look on the agenda for the meeting next week that Jennifer circulated this day. All listed topics are related to our scope (and only a subset of the proposed subgroup topics) and we agreed SSR2-internal on this approach to moving forward with the subgroup work. I would rather worry about yesterday's message from SSAC. I have the same viewpoint in many issues and have already expressed this to some team members in the past. We should rather look at the overall situation and how we continue with the SSR2 review. - Boban. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 5 Oct 2017, at 19:27, ALAIN AINA <aalain@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@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@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@fb.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ssr2-review mailing list >>>> Ssr2-review@icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ssr2-review mailing list >>> Ssr2-review@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review > -- Boban Kršić Chief Information Security Officer DENIC eG, Kaiserstraße 75-77, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, GERMANY E-Mail: krsic@denic.de, Fon: +49 69 272 35-120, Fax: -248 Mobil: +49 172 67 61 671 https://www.denic.de X.509 Key-ID: 00A54FCB79884413A4 Fingerprint: 9D37 F593 AF9A D766 FAB4 8B88 D49A 2716 PGP Key-ID: 0x43C89BA9 Fingerprint: B974 E725 FEF7 CB3A E452 BEE0 5B80 73E9 43C8 9BA9 Angaben nach § 25a Absatz 1 GenG: DENIC eG (Sitz: Frankfurt am Main) Vorstand: Helga Krüger, Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. Jörg Schweiger Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller Eingetragen unter Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
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@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
It has my support. Jame s
On 5 Oct 2017, at 21:33, Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <SSR2-review@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@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Thanks, James. Noted. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 10/5/17, 12:35 PM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of James Gannon" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: It has my support. Jame s > On 5 Oct 2017, at 21:33, Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <SSR2-review@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@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ssr2-review mailing list >>> Ssr2-review@icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review@icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... > > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
your question is: "this stop-gap message is something that you _all_ are comfortable with us sending” [my emphasis] If you include me in that definition of “all” then, as a member of this review team, no, I am uncomfortable with you sending this message. I am uncomfortable with being represented as agreeing with this message when in fact I disagree with this draft message, as you should be aware of by now. regards, Geoff
On 6 Oct 2017, at 6:33 am, Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <ssr2-review@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@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Thanks, Geoff. Noted. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 10/5/17, 1:33 PM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Geoff Huston" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gih@apnic.net> wrote: your question is: "this stop-gap message is something that you _all_ are comfortable with us sending” [my emphasis] If you include me in that definition of “all” then, as a member of this review team, no, I am uncomfortable with you sending this message. I am uncomfortable with being represented as agreeing with this message when in fact I disagree with this draft message, as you should be aware of by now. regards, Geoff > On 6 Oct 2017, at 6:33 am, Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review <ssr2-review@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@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ssr2-review mailing list >>> Ssr2-review@icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review@icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... > > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Thanks, Alain. I note your agreement with Geoff’s statement. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 10/5/17, 10:25 AM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ALAIN AINA" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aalain@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@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@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@fb.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ssr2-review mailing list >> Ssr2-review@icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Noted. Thanks. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 10/5/17, 9:41 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@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@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@fb.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Ssr2-review mailing list > Ssr2-review@icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Dear Co-chairs, It has my support. I am also proposing that we review Board concerns and give a clarification to each of the stated point. However, the language used in Board statement/SSAC I am not comfortable with it and is giving me different thinking about ICANN as organization. We are dedicating a good number of time to make sure that we are able to deliver best recommendation for the better of ICANN and the community we represent in the team, that only need to be appreciated. Regards, Matogoro Sent from Windows Mail From: Denise Michel Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 6:17 PM To: SSR2 Review Team Email List 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@fb.com
Dear Co-Chairs, I am agree with Matogoro statement. Regards Ram Krishna
On Oct 6, 2017, at 11:09 AM, jaberamatogoro@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Co-chairs,
It has my support. I am also proposing that we review Board concerns and give a clarification to each of the stated point. However, the language used in Board statement/SSAC I am not comfortable with it and is giving me different thinking about ICANN as organization.
We are dedicating a good number of time to make sure that we are able to deliver best recommendation for the better of ICANN and the community we represent in the team, that only need to be appreciated.
Regards, Matogoro
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Denise Michel <mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 6:17 PM To: SSR2 Review Team Email List <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>
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@fb.com <mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Thank you , Ram. We’ve noted your comments. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> From: Ramkrishna Pariyar <ramkrishna@isoc.org.np> Date: Friday, October 6, 2017 at 3:29 AM To: Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com>, SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org> Cc: "jaberamatogoro@gmail.com" <jaberamatogoro@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Email replying to Board Dear Co-Chairs, I am agree with Matogoro statement. Regards Ram Krishna On Oct 6, 2017, at 11:09 AM, jaberamatogoro@gmail.com<mailto:jaberamatogoro@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Co-chairs, It has my support. I am also proposing that we review Board concerns and give a clarification to each of the stated point. However, the language used in Board statement/SSAC I am not comfortable with it and is giving me different thinking about ICANN as organization. We are dedicating a good number of time to make sure that we are able to deliver best recommendation for the better of ICANN and the community we represent in the team, that only need to be appreciated. Regards, Matogoro Sent from Windows Mail From: Denise Michel<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 6:17 PM To: SSR2 Review Team Email List<mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org> 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@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org<mailto:Ssr2-review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ssr2-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=yDrJyKPswOd2SJlWC6NiNmkbyvy8Oc_z_3lINi3sIE8&s=7ZX2TSGjV5xxsibtSlRxJK4F1zgdXfY8fKjjVRVyFd4&e=>
Thank you Matogoro. We’ve noted your comments. Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> From: "jaberamatogoro@gmail.com" <jaberamatogoro@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:36 PM To: Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com>, SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Email replying to Board Dear Co-chairs, It has my support. I am also proposing that we review Board concerns and give a clarification to each of the stated point. However, the language used in Board statement/SSAC I am not comfortable with it and is giving me different thinking about ICANN as organization. We are dedicating a good number of time to make sure that we are able to deliver best recommendation for the better of ICANN and the community we represent in the team, that only need to be appreciated. Regards, Matogoro Sent from Windows Mail From: Denise Michel<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 6:17 PM To: SSR2 Review Team Email List<mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org> 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@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>
Matogoro,
On 6 Oct 2017, at 05:24, jaberamatogoro@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Co-chairs,
It has my support. I am also proposing that we review Board concerns and give a clarification to each of the stated point. However, the language used in Board statement/SSAC I am not comfortable with it and is giving me different thinking about ICANN as organization.
:-)
We are dedicating a good number of time to make sure that we are able to deliver best recommendation for the better of ICANN and the community we represent in the team, that only need to be appreciated.
I think both the board and SSAC do know and recognize our contribution here as volunteers. Board has been attentive to what we are doing and engage when needed. We expect community inputs and observations and i appreciate SSAC voicing their concerns now as from their position of adviser on Security and Stability matters, they are important player when it comes to SSR. Most of the us, if not all agreed that the “engines" not performing well and must be fixed. —Alain
Regards, Matogoro
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Denise Michel <mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 6:17 PM To: SSR2 Review Team Email List <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>
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@fb.com <mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
participants (8)
-
ALAIN AINA -
Boban Krsic -
Denise Michel -
Geoff Huston -
jaberamatogoro＠gmail.com -
James Gannon -
Osterweil, Eric -
Ramkrishna Pariyar