SSR1 Assessment Methodology
Dear all, After continued discussion about our methodology and assessment limitations, it seems prudent to sum those up in a document, which I feel we should attach to our assessment. I brought up this idea (again) on the leadership call this Monday. I am holding the pen on this draft at the moment and would appreciate comments, feedback, changes, etc. (To make things easier and less messy, the document is in “suggestion” mode) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JPk3F6B2B6TdwvzjsIp1ADy-FFrzz-3uIRWJfeps... Many thanks Laurin
Laurin: Thanks for writing the preamble text to explain the process. I made a few very minor editorial suggestions. Russ
On Nov 22, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Weissinger, Laurin <laurin.weissinger@yale.edu> wrote:
Dear all,
After continued discussion about our methodology and assessment limitations, it seems prudent to sum those up in a document, which I feel we should attach to our assessment. I brought up this idea (again) on the leadership call this Monday. I am holding the pen on this draft at the moment and would appreciate comments, feedback, changes, etc. (To make things easier and less messy, the document is in “suggestion” mode)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JPk3F6B2B6TdwvzjsIp1ADy-FFrzz-3uIRWJfeps...
Many thanks Laurin
Dear Laurin, Very well described! I have nothing to add from my side! Thanks a lot! Cheers, - Boban. On 22.11.18 17:48, Weissinger, Laurin wrote:
Dear all,
After continued discussion about our methodology and assessment limitations, it seems prudent to sum those up in a document, which I feel we should attach to our assessment. I brought up this idea (again) on the leadership call this Monday. I am holding the pen on this draft at the moment and would appreciate comments, feedback, changes, etc. (To make things easier and less messy, the document is in “suggestion” mode)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JPk3F6B2B6TdwvzjsIp1ADy-FFrzz-3uIRWJfeps...
Many thanks Laurin
_______________________________________________ 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 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
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
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
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
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
participants (5)
-
Boban Krsic -
k claffy -
Kerry-Ann Barrett -
Russ Housley -
Weissinger, Laurin