We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work. I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday. Thanks, Russ - - - - - - - - Subteam No. / Rapporteur 1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
Hi all, I can speak to the recommendations regarding risk, ISMS, etc. Related recommendation teams (2,3,5,6,7,8,9) had calls together to address the comments and we drew up a table with responses, proposed actions, etc. More to come soon. For reference, this is our table at the moment: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oj3NB_lU2APbqLi53zIjNR9Cv2YuohrWzx-r... 15,16,16,18 (plus the other abuse ones Denise is leading): we had two calls to discuss the approach and high level issue but a record number of comments (163!) are related to the abuse topic area. It will take some more calls to respond and decide actions. All the best Laurin
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fssr2-review&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7Ce000e7c6a6854827f4e708d7f5d584cf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637248169715388501&sdata=QQjIvpAF4h7ih60ylB7K4jbI9xvFAwMWqiJCYwS6HNw%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7Ce000e7c6a6854827f4e708d7f5d584cf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637248169715388501&sdata=X7HEfKh0%2Bx1iwUrzhjMrrpawOHT%2BVMPj61jvxNMtEfo%3D&reserved=0) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7Ce000e7c6a6854827f4e708d7f5d584cf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637248169715388501&sdata=2OcOTxuWfaOkotOHeDY0MLZtA3IbLsoWbjH%2Fne%2B0EOg%3D&reserved=0). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
SUBTEAM 1 The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories: 1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG. 2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC. In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it. (SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review? This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations. I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward. CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work). CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation. CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2. We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call. Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below). If you have a different opinion, please speak up now. Russ
On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
SUBTEAM 1
The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it.
(SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work).
CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
I have always had, and made clear, a different opinion on this issue. I believe we need to do Option 1, but we do not have the resources. So we should probably have a recommendation that makes it clear that given the state of documentation, it was not possible for an independent review committee to do a reasonable job at the required task of assessing all previous implementations and their effectivness, beyond knowing that there were gaps, for the reasons we highlight at the top of Appendix D. so we recommend this review task be outsourced to paid professionals, who should take appendix D and review the gaps that we discovered, and then make these recommendations SMART. I suspect we will also need to recommend this outsourcing for our own recommendations, because I believe we cannot even make those SMART in limited volunteer review time. I will note that ATRT3's original plan to perform this required reivew of ATRT2's implementation was just to accept ICANN's own self-assessment, due to the 12-month time window. Several of us on the team objected to this approach, and prevailed, but we had the same trouble that SSR2 did with evaluating previous implementations. I will also note that this is why ICANN now has implementation shepherds and the new Operating Standards, so they are quite aware of the problem. Alas, CCT's implementation shepherds have not had much to shepherd.. That said, I am in favor of dropping as many recommendations as we can justify dropping from both SSR1 and 2. Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Eric yet about the ones we volunteered to cover. I hope this week. k
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work).
this issue; I think we should not have On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:23:30AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote: The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below). If you have a different opinion, please speak up now. Russ
On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
SUBTEAM 1
The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it.
(SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work). CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Two people on the call spoke for CHOICE 3. Now, KC has spoken for CHOICE 2. I would like to hear from others too. Russ
On May 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I have always had, and made clear, a different opinion on this issue. I believe we need to do Option 1, but we do not have the resources. So we should probably have a recommendation that makes it clear that given the state of documentation, it was not possible for an independent review committee to do a reasonable job at the required task of assessing all previous implementations and their effectivness, beyond knowing that there were gaps, for the reasons we highlight at the top of Appendix D. so we recommend this review task be outsourced to paid professionals, who should take appendix D and review the gaps that we discovered, and then make these recommendations SMART.
I suspect we will also need to recommend this outsourcing for our own recommendations, because I believe we cannot even make those SMART in limited volunteer review time.
I will note that ATRT3's original plan to perform this required reivew of ATRT2's implementation was just to accept ICANN's own self-assessment, due to the 12-month time window. Several of us on the team objected to this approach, and prevailed, but we had the same trouble that SSR2 did with evaluating previous implementations. I will also note that this is why ICANN now has implementation shepherds and the new Operating Standards, so they are quite aware of the problem. Alas, CCT's implementation shepherds have not had much to shepherd..
That said, I am in favor of dropping as many recommendations as we can justify dropping from both SSR1 and 2. Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Eric yet about the ones we volunteered to cover. I hope this week.
k
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work).
this issue; I think we should not have
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:23:30AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote: The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below). If you have a different opinion, please speak up now.
Russ
On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
SUBTEAM 1
The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it.
(SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work). CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I would like to go with CHOICE 3. Naveed - On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Two people on the call spoke for CHOICE 3. Now, KC has spoken for CHOICE 2. I would like to hear from others too.
Russ
On May 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I have always had, and made clear, a different opinion on this issue. I believe we need to do Option 1, but we do not have the resources. So we should probably have a recommendation that makes it clear that given the state of documentation, it was not possible for an independent review committee to do a reasonable job at the required task of assessing all previous implementations and their effectivness, beyond knowing that there were gaps, for the reasons we highlight at the top of Appendix D. so we recommend this review task be outsourced to paid professionals, who should take appendix D and review the gaps that we discovered, and then make these recommendations SMART.
I suspect we will also need to recommend this outsourcing for our own recommendations, because I believe we cannot even make those SMART in limited volunteer review time.
I will note that ATRT3's original plan to perform this required reivew of ATRT2's implementation was just to accept ICANN's own self-assessment, due to the 12-month time window. Several of us on the team objected to this approach, and prevailed, but we had the same trouble that SSR2 did with evaluating previous implementations. I will also note that this is why ICANN now has implementation shepherds and the new Operating Standards, so they are quite aware of the problem. Alas, CCT's implementation shepherds have not had much to shepherd..
That said, I am in favor of dropping as many recommendations as we can justify dropping from both SSR1 and 2. Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Eric yet about the ones we volunteered to cover. I hope this week.
k
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work).
this issue; I think we should not have
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:23:30AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote: The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below). If you have a different opinion, please speak up now.
Russ
On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
SUBTEAM 1
The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it.
(SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work). CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear all, As I said on call, I would want to look at it in detail before making a “final” call. Will do so later today. All the best Laurin
On May 25, 2020, at 11:39, Naveed Bin Rais <naveedbinrais@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to go with CHOICE 3.
Naveed -
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Two people on the call spoke for CHOICE 3. Now, KC has spoken for CHOICE 2. I would like to hear from others too.
Russ
On May 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, k claffy <kc@caida.org> wrote:
I have always had, and made clear, a different opinion on this issue. I believe we need to do Option 1, but we do not have the resources. So we should probably have a recommendation that makes it clear that given the state of documentation, it was not possible for an independent review committee to do a reasonable job at the required task of assessing all previous implementations and their effectivness, beyond knowing that there were gaps, for the reasons we highlight at the top of Appendix D. so we recommend this review task be outsourced to paid professionals, who should take appendix D and review the gaps that we discovered, and then make these recommendations SMART.
I suspect we will also need to recommend this outsourcing for our own recommendations, because I believe we cannot even make those SMART in limited volunteer review time.
I will note that ATRT3's original plan to perform this required reivew of ATRT2's implementation was just to accept ICANN's own self-assessment, due to the 12-month time window. Several of us on the team objected to this approach, and prevailed, but we had the same trouble that SSR2 did with evaluating previous implementations. I will also note that this is why ICANN now has implementation shepherds and the new Operating Standards, so they are quite aware of the problem. Alas, CCT's implementation shepherds have not had much to shepherd..
That said, I am in favor of dropping as many recommendations as we can justify dropping from both SSR1 and 2. Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to talk to Eric yet about the ones we volunteered to cover. I hope this week.
k
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work).
this issue; I think we should not have
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:23:30AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote: The people on the call today were supportive of CHOICE 3 (see below). If you have a different opinion, please speak up now.
Russ
On May 13, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
SUBTEAM 1
The comments against recommendation 1 fall into two categories:
1) Strong support for finishing SSR1 recommendation implementation from BC, IPC, M3AAWG, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
2) Request for more detail on what is needed to "fully implement" each SSR1 recommendation from SSAC, ICANN Board, ICANN Org, and GAC.
In addition, the following comment assigned to Subteam 1 is not really about Recommendation 1. I think we need to recategorize it.
(SSAC)(3.1.2) The SSAC has some concerns about the viability of implementation of such a significant list of actions. Specifically, the SSAC is concerned about the extent, cost, sequence, and timeframe of the necessary actions required to implement all of these recommendations. Are there other measures that the SSR2 RT may wish to propose that would give the 135 proposed recommendations a significant prospect of avoiding the same incomplete fate as the 27 outstanding SSR1 recommendations by the time of the next SSR review?
This is really encouraging us to have fewer recommendations. The GAG comments also encourage fewer recommendations.
I think the whole review team needs to weigh in on the choices for going forward.
CHOICE 1) Bring the table from Appendix D forward into Recommendation 1 and make each row SMART. (A lot of work). CHOICE 2) Drop Recommendation 1 and strengthen Suggestion 2 to say that incomplete implementation will be caught earlier in the process by the ICANN community, but also encourage the completion of the SSR1 recommendation implementation.
CHOICE 3) Keep Recommendation 1 as is, and strengthen Suggestion 2.
We will discuss the way forward on the next SSR2 RT Plenary call.
Russ
On May 11, 2020, at 14:02, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
We are not having a plenary call this week so that subteams can continue their work.
I ask that the Rapporteur for each subteam to send a short status to the whole team by close of business on Wednesday.
Thanks, Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fssr2-review&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=nAW5vY6yob29OKJzsVN5SpFIxfjqgZ8MIHmhIu6JnHk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=mPZoZ56P4HBmITugGJhteOkAX3IOGocO38fZbZpoT0Y%3D&reserved=0) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=4P5wp%2FSUZIvbEniAMZcvRPpslNS72KRrB5jvcGJBwQI%3D&reserved=0). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fssr2-review&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=nAW5vY6yob29OKJzsVN5SpFIxfjqgZ8MIHmhIu6JnHk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=mPZoZ56P4HBmITugGJhteOkAX3IOGocO38fZbZpoT0Y%3D&reserved=0) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=4P5wp%2FSUZIvbEniAMZcvRPpslNS72KRrB5jvcGJBwQI%3D&reserved=0). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fssr2-review&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=nAW5vY6yob29OKJzsVN5SpFIxfjqgZ8MIHmhIu6JnHk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976842045&sdata=mPZoZ56P4HBmITugGJhteOkAX3IOGocO38fZbZpoT0Y%3D&reserved=0) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7Claurin.weissinger%40yale.edu%7C553614a8fd9b4588b25408d800c1dfbf%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637260179976852035&sdata=7%2BCLKzZvyD5ifUYjW7N7b8NGyZIzmn0HAQ8fTG6u2mE%3D&reserved=0). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Rapporteurs: Please update this progress chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cOZ1lPXqHfuZNt68zvB5xRB63eBoL3gonDbh... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cOZ1lPXqHfuZNt68zvB5xRB63eBoL3gonDbh...> Russ
- - - - - - - -
Subteam No. / Rapporteur
1 Russ 2 Boban 3 Kerry-Ann 4 Noorul 5 Laurin 6 Norm 7 Boban 8 Boban 9 Boban 10 Denise 11 Denise 12 Denise 13 Denise 14 Denise 15 Laurin 16 Laurin 17 Laurin 18 Laurin 19 kc 20 Eric 21 Eric 22 kc 23 Zarko 24 kc 25 kc 26 Zarko 27 Alain 28 Naveed 29 Kerry-Ann 30 Eric 31 Zarko
participants (4)
-
k claffy -
Naveed Bin Rais -
Russ Housley -
Weissinger, Laurin