Re: [Ssr2-review] [EXT] Re: SSR1 Assessment Methodology
Laurin I made changes please lt me know if you can see it. Kind Regards Kerry-Ann Barrett Cyber Security Policy Specialist Organization of American States From: Weissinger, Laurin<mailto:laurin.weissinger@yale.edu> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM To: k claffy<mailto:kc@caida.org> Cc: SSR2 Review<mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology Dear KC and Kerry-Ann, Dear all, I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph. Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything. I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it? Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work. Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document. All the best Laurin P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.
On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
Kerry-Ann,
I would be happy to see that, thank you!
I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going to show up..
k
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:
Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today?
I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.
Cheers Kerry-Ann
On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I disagree with the last paragraph, and think it undermines the entire assessment and the review process.
Can you provide specific examples of recommendations that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing? Because that is what the current text implies.
If someone is not satisfied with the way these assessments have been done, leadership should ask them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation. Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone on ICANN staff as well.
But we cannot write a report and then end it with "it would take too long and too many resources to do this accurately, so we didn't."
My specific suggestion is to remove the last paragraph of the Limitations section.
k
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, I also put my comments early this morning in the draft. Naveed - On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 10:35 Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett@oas.org wrote:
Laurin
I made changes please lt me know if you can see it.
Kind Regards Kerry-Ann Barrett Cyber Security Policy Specialist Organization of American States
*From: *Weissinger, Laurin <laurin.weissinger@yale.edu> *Sent: *Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM *To: *k claffy <kc@caida.org> *Cc: *SSR2 Review <ssr2-review@icann.org> *Subject: *[EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology
Dear KC and Kerry-Ann, Dear all,
I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph.
Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything. I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it?
Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work. Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document.
All the best Laurin
P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.
On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
Kerry-Ann,
I would be happy to see that, thank you!
I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going to show up..
k
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:
Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today?
I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.
Cheers Kerry-Ann
On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I disagree with the last paragraph, and think it undermines the entire assessment and the review process.
Can you provide specific examples of recommendations that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing? Because that is what the current text implies.
If someone is not satisfied with the way these assessments have been done, leadership should ask them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation. Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone on ICANN staff as well.
But we cannot write a report and then end it with "it would take too long and too many resources to do this accurately, so we didn't."
My specific suggestion is to remove the last paragraph of the Limitations section.
k
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, There have been a number of edits and some discussions are open in the doc. Please review / suggest and add your thoughts to those items so that we have something to talk about during our Thursday call. If possible, log into your google account. Otherwise it will get tough to track who is saying what. All the best Laurin
On 27 Nov 2018, at 01:42, Naveed Bin Rais <naveedbinrais@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I also put my comments early this morning in the draft.
Naveed -
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 10:35 Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett@oas.org wrote: Laurin
I made changes please lt me know if you can see it.
Kind Regards Kerry-Ann Barrett Cyber Security Policy Specialist Organization of American States
From: Weissinger, Laurin Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM To: k claffy Cc: SSR2 Review Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology
Dear KC and Kerry-Ann, Dear all,
I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph.
Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything. I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it?
Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work. Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document.
All the best Laurin
P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.
On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
Kerry-Ann,
I would be happy to see that, thank you!
I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going to show up..
k
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:
Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today?
I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.
Cheers Kerry-Ann
On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I disagree with the last paragraph, and think it undermines the entire assessment and the review process.
Can you provide specific examples of recommendations that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing? Because that is what the current text implies.
If someone is not satisfied with the way these assessments have been done, leadership should ask them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation. Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone on ICANN staff as well.
But we cannot write a report and then end it with "it would take too long and too many resources to do this accurately, so we didn't."
My specific suggestion is to remove the last paragraph of the Limitations section.
k
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, During our cal today, some two additional points were raised and addressed regarding the document but we seem to have arrived at a level of consensus, as no further objections were raised. Please do revisit the document and add your final suggestions until end of day Tuesday, 4th of December! (Please do so in the document if at all possible) This is the link to document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JPk3F6B2B6TdwvzjsIp1ADy-FFrzz-3uIRWJfeps... Many thanks Laurin
On 27 Nov 2018, at 13:10, Weissinger, Laurin <laurin.weissinger@yale.edu> wrote:
Dear all,
There have been a number of edits and some discussions are open in the doc. Please review / suggest and add your thoughts to those items so that we have something to talk about during our Thursday call.
If possible, log into your google account. Otherwise it will get tough to track who is saying what.
All the best Laurin
On 27 Nov 2018, at 01:42, Naveed Bin Rais <naveedbinrais@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I also put my comments early this morning in the draft.
Naveed -
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 10:35 Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett@oas.org wrote: Laurin
I made changes please lt me know if you can see it.
Kind Regards Kerry-Ann Barrett Cyber Security Policy Specialist Organization of American States
From: Weissinger, Laurin Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:20 PM To: k claffy Cc: SSR2 Review Subject: [EXT] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR1 Assessment Methodology
Dear KC and Kerry-Ann, Dear all,
I feel we must speak to our limitations to serve the purpose of this review and give context to our approach, and I don’t see what is factually incorrect in that paragraph.
Our resources, time, and evidence are limited, and we noted the lack of “assessability” of some recommendations. Also, as with any assessment, nothing we did was exhaustive and covering everything. I don’t see how these limitations and us noting those lead to us having done a bad job, which is what I understand KC took away from reading it?
Please do not understand this as me disagreeing with you completely! Some edits are probably needed to note the key facts and limitations (which I believe matter), without sounding too negative about our work. Rather, I am searching clarification as to what is problematic exactly and how it should be included in the document.
All the best Laurin
P.S. Anonymous edits/suggestions and comments are recorded but none have been added to that paragraph.
On 25 Nov 2018, at 18:21, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
Kerry-Ann,
I would be happy to see that, thank you!
I did make some edits to the document, but had forgotten to log in so they are either 'anonymous' or not going to show up..
k
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:43:19AM -0500, Kerry-Ann Barrett wrote:
Thanks so much Laurin for taking the first stab at the draft but agree with KC to the extent that we could phrase the limitations a little differently.
Would anyone have any objections if I suggest some edits later today?
I???ve been on the road but will be in Panama later today and will have some time later to add some suggested edits to the google doc. Let me know.
Cheers Kerry-Ann
On Nov 24, 2018, at 8:50 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I disagree with the last paragraph, and think it undermines the entire assessment and the review process.
Can you provide specific examples of recommendations that you believe we did a crappy job of assessing? Because that is what the current text implies.
If someone is not satisfied with the way these assessments have been done, leadership should ask them to work 2-3 specific examples of what they consider a satisfactory assessment of a recommendation. Leadership could extend the same offer to anyone on ICANN staff as well.
But we cannot write a report and then end it with "it would take too long and too many resources to do this accurately, so we didn't."
My specific suggestion is to remove the last paragraph of the Limitations section.
k
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Barrett, Kerry-Ann -
Naveed Bin Rais -
Weissinger, Laurin