Hi Team members and Staff. In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items. As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.). Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team). Next Team Call: * The time the group selected for the next SSR2 call is 15:00 UTC, Thursday, 05 July 2018. Please contact staff directly 1) if you don’t have a calendar invite, and 2) if you are unable to participate. * Where we left things… I just found a summary of our last call here<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/SSR2+Meeting+%2335+-+19+June+2018+@+...>. It’s on this wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/SSR2+Meeting+%2335+-+19+June+2018+@+...>. (Staff – to help us all get accustomed to your protocols, would you please email to the list when these items are posted.) * I’ll work with Phil to create a draft agenda for Thursday’s call and it will be sent to the list shortly for your input. (Eric’s on vacation) Next Team Face-to-Face Meeting: * Based on Team input and availability, we suggest locking-in Aug. 22 – 24 in DC for our next meeting. Unfortunately there’s no date or location that meets everyone’s needs/preferences but this seems to be the best. If further discussion is needed, I suggest people use the email list and we’ll include this in our call agenda. * Staff – would it be possible to centralize and have you quickly address the paperwork needs of Team members who require official letters to travel? Some Team members have been waiting months and it would be a shame if they missed our August meeting due to this. A Few To Do’s: * Eric and I volunteered to send a draft digest to help new Team members get up to speed on past work and we’ll post it today; additions from legacy Team members is encouraged. * Phil (Facilitator) is talking to each Team member individually and will come back to Team with his suggestions of how to assist us in moving forward. * Staff – please send Team members’ contact info off-list to each member by tomorrow. Amin, Kaveh, and Noorul – it would be great if you could return the questionnaire to staff today so you can be included. Open Items: * What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing” * Matogoro emailed his suggestions * We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?) * Other? (please share on list and on call) * At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2018-March/000935.html>) * Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2018-February/000933.html>) * What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else? * Other? (please share on list and on call) Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>
On 4 Jul 2018, at 4:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> wrote:
Hi Team members and Staff.
In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items. As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.).
I wonder about the wisdom of just picking up from last time and resuming the same structures. We have now been provided with Phil and I think we should make extensive use of him in this work. With the exception of Phil and the ICANN staff we are all volunteers and we all have limited time and resources to devote to this activity. I’d like to see us make good use of Phil’s availability to offload much of the work that the volunteer structure has already encountered problems.
Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team).
Open Items: • What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing” • Matogoro emailed his suggestions • We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?) • Other? (please share on list and on call) • At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs) • Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs) • What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else? • Other? (please share on list and on call)
Missing is “what went wrong with the SSR to the extent that the Board felt it necessary to pause this effort in 2017, and what can we learn from this to improve how this review it to function” I suspect that the basic issues were an ambitious scope of work and insufficient resources from the volunteer group to undertake this work. Perhaps we might like to contemplate a slightly different approach that makes the best use of Phil as a facilitator of the team, and I would like to propose that Phil review the Terms of Reference of this review and report back. Is the ToR sufficiently focussed to define the work? Should the ToR be sharpened up to review specific aspects of ICANN’s carriage of security and stability aspects of the DNS? What is achievable in this area? I would like to think that once we consider Phil’s review of the ToR we could then look at what aspect of this topic area we would like studied and work with Phil to figure out what studies we would like to commission by third parties, as coordinated by Phil obviously. thanks, Geoff
On 4 Jul 2018, at 01:15, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2018, at 4:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> wrote:
Hi Team members and Staff.
In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items. As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.).
I wonder about the wisdom of just picking up from last time and resuming the same structures. We have now been provided with Phil and I think we should make extensive use of him in this work. With the exception of Phil and the ICANN staff we are all volunteers and we all have limited time and resources to devote to this activity. I’d like to see us make good use of Phil’s availability to offload much of the work that the volunteer structure has already encountered problems.
not sure “just picking up from last time and resuming the same structure” is the best. We had some issues, were paused and went through a long process which brought: - new RT members - Phil as facilitator with a clear work scope and deliverables Phil to help us reorganise, refocus and restart. His facilitation ends when his deliverables are completed.
Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team).
Open Items: • What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing” • Matogoro emailed his suggestions • We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?) • Other? (please share on list and on call) • At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs) • Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs) • What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else? • Other? (please share on list and on call)
Missing is “what went wrong with the SSR to the extent that the Board felt it necessary to pause this effort in 2017, and what can we learn from this to improve how this review it to function”
+1
I suspect that the basic issues were an ambitious scope of work and insufficient resources from the volunteer group to undertake this work.
And not to forget what led us to that situation which were about leadership, processes and consensus/decisions making
Perhaps we might like to contemplate a slightly different approach that makes the best use of Phil as a facilitator of the team
Agreed.
, and
I would like to propose that Phil review the Terms of Reference of this review and report back. Is the ToR sufficiently focussed to define the work? Should the ToR be sharpened up to review specific aspects of ICANN’s carriage of security and stability aspects of the DNS? What is achievable in this area?
I would like to think that once we consider Phil’s review of the ToR we could then look at what aspect of this topic area we would like studied and work with Phil to figure out what studies we would like to commission by third parties, as coordinated by Phil obviously.
I think this beyond Phil scope as i see it (i may be wrong and happy to be corrected). Phil is to help this group of experts to determine what we are supposed to do and how we do it and not tell us what to do. We will for sure revisit the ToR and the subsequent documents (timeline and work plan), how we work (sub-groups, etc..), how we better use and interact with staff, etc. under phil’s facilitation HTH —Alain
thanks,
Geoff
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Dear Team, Phil should concentrate on ToR that was assigned to him. In most cases he will need to understand the ground work done by the RT before pause. I have no idea on what went wrong until the board paused this work. I only know that SSAC advised the board that we are not making progress and ICANN resource are being wasted. Similarly, what I also remember is that we have members in RT who are playing an oversight role and report to the board if we are not going to the direction that RT suppose to go and not giving their guidance on how better to correct what is not going to the correct direction. May be partly is due to lack of consensus approach among the team. Phil was tasked to address this too. As we are restarting it is better to make sure we respective idea and contribution from each one of us known that we have different level of understanding on various matters but that should not be a weapon to weaken those looking to catch and contribute better. Speaking from academic point view. We loosed on the methodology for this task and looking that Phil will help the team to adopt a methodology which will later help the team to come up with SMART recommendation. Regards, Matogoro On Jul 4, 2018 4:16 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2018, at 4:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> wrote:
Hi Team members and Staff.
In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items. As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.).
I wonder about the wisdom of just picking up from last time and resuming the same structures. We have now been provided with Phil and I think we should make extensive use of him in this work. With the exception of Phil and the ICANN staff we are all volunteers and we all have limited time and resources to devote to this activity. I’d like to see us make good use of Phil’s availability to offload much of the work that the volunteer structure has already encountered problems.
Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team).
Open Items: • What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing” • Matogoro emailed his suggestions • We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?) • Other? (please share on list and on call) • At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs) • Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs) • What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else? • Other? (please share on list and on call)
Missing is “what went wrong with the SSR to the extent that the Board felt it necessary to pause this effort in 2017, and what can we learn from this to improve how this review it to function”
I suspect that the basic issues were an ambitious scope of work and insufficient resources from the volunteer group to undertake this work. Perhaps we might like to contemplate a slightly different approach that makes the best use of Phil as a facilitator of the team, and
I would like to propose that Phil review the Terms of Reference of this review and report back. Is the ToR sufficiently focussed to define the work? Should the ToR be sharpened up to review specific aspects of ICANN’s carriage of security and stability aspects of the DNS? What is achievable in this area?
I would like to think that once we consider Phil’s review of the ToR we could then look at what aspect of this topic area we would like studied and work with Phil to figure out what studies we would like to commission by third parties, as coordinated by Phil obviously.
thanks,
Geoff
_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Thanks Matogoro, Alain and Geoff for your contributions. This will be fed into Phil’s work and our discussions. Additional comments are encouraged! Best, Denise Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> From: Matogoro Jabera <jaberamatogoro@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:38 AM To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Cc: SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org>, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Next call and misc items Dear Team, Phil should concentrate on ToR that was assigned to him. In most cases he will need to understand the ground work done by the RT before pause. I have no idea on what went wrong until the board paused this work. I only know that SSAC advised the board that we are not making progress and ICANN resource are being wasted. Similarly, what I also remember is that we have members in RT who are playing an oversight role and report to the board if we are not going to the direction that RT suppose to go and not giving their guidance on how better to correct what is not going to the correct direction. May be partly is due to lack of consensus approach among the team. Phil was tasked to address this too. As we are restarting it is better to make sure we respective idea and contribution from each one of us known that we have different level of understanding on various matters but that should not be a weapon to weaken those looking to catch and contribute better. Speaking from academic point view. We loosed on the methodology for this task and looking that Phil will help the team to adopt a methodology which will later help the team to come up with SMART recommendation. Regards, Matogoro On Jul 4, 2018 4:16 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net<mailto:gih@apnic.net>> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2018, at 4:17 am, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>> wrote:
Hi Team members and Staff.
In an effort to keep things moving forward, and as one of the co-chairs prior to the “pause,” I’d like to address some administrative items. As we’ve noted, with new members on the Team, and as the Team enters its second year, we’ll be doing a fresh call for leadership volunteers (chairs, vice chairs, sub-group/topic leaders…. whatever construct the Team decides to use.).
I wonder about the wisdom of just picking up from last time and resuming the same structures. We have now been provided with Phil and I think we should make extensive use of him in this work. With the exception of Phil and the ICANN staff we are all volunteers and we all have limited time and resources to devote to this activity. I’d like to see us make good use of Phil’s availability to offload much of the work that the volunteer structure has already encountered problems.
Until we do, Eric and I have volunteered to continue to facilitate Team calls/meetings. If there are any Team members who would like to help, we’d welcome it. We’re all busy volunteers; if you want something done, or done differently, it’s incumbent upon you to speak-up (and preferably step-up and/or suggest resources we should add to support the Team).
Open Items: • What are the questions that we need to/and want to initially address as part of our “un-pausing” • Matogoro emailed his suggestions • We briefly discussed the idea of a call with the Board (Board Cmt?) and one with the SO/AC chairs (What would be the objectives? What needs to be done prior to calls?) • Other? (please share on list and on call) • At a minimum, to re-start the Team’s work, we need to review and confirm the scope/terms of reference, identify leadership positions/people, ways to reach consensus. (See email from SO/AC chairs) • Questions around Staff support and resources also are outstanding (See email from SO/AC chairs) • What do new members need to get up to speed so we can start working? (aside from digest) Briefings on major buckets of work was suggested… anything else? • Other? (please share on list and on call)
Missing is “what went wrong with the SSR to the extent that the Board felt it necessary to pause this effort in 2017, and what can we learn from this to improve how this review it to function” I suspect that the basic issues were an ambitious scope of work and insufficient resources from the volunteer group to undertake this work. Perhaps we might like to contemplate a slightly different approach that makes the best use of Phil as a facilitator of the team, and I would like to propose that Phil review the Terms of Reference of this review and report back. Is the ToR sufficiently focussed to define the work? Should the ToR be sharpened up to review specific aspects of ICANN’s carriage of security and stability aspects of the DNS? What is achievable in this area? I would like to think that once we consider Phil’s review of the ToR we could then look at what aspect of this topic area we would like studied and work with Phil to figure out what studies we would like to commission by third parties, as coordinated by Phil obviously. thanks, Geoff _______________________________________________ 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=x1UibOPe439GJe3dljZQKtI5pCZmngwKS3KKTZUw_IY&s=LtAF5ElpZD7_vAOQIOkp741fTetkeoMjOI1rYMdLTHs&e=>
participants (4)
-
ALAIN AINA -
Denise Michel -
Geoff Huston -
Matogoro Jabera