Please review the first 5 SSR1 recommendations for the call tomorrow
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation. The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations. Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect. At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call. Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes") Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect. If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on? If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason. I look forward to our call tomorrow. Russ
Russ, all, I'm on a flight toomrrow during this call, I will read minutes.. k On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 01:15:44PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason.
I look forward to our call tomorrow.
Russ _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture? Russ
On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason.
I look forward to our call tomorrow.
Russ
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 02:31:10PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
i had wanted to contribute thoughts to last week's conversation but the transcript is not posted yet, i was waiting for that. i'm not sure about this suggestion, but... i'm wondering if we should have a question that covers how hard it is to figure out whether the recommendation was implemented? as i was reading many of the recommendations, and ICANN's custom slide set descibing how "all of them are implemented", i found myself thinking "it should not be this hard to figure out whether they did X appropriately." ideally, and i hope this is an SSR2 recommendation, there should be one public document to cover 'transparency and accountability wrt implementation of recommendations in this report'. so maybe the 4 questions are (first 3 as worded in the doc): (1) Execution (2) Assessment of Efficacy (3) Relevance and Current Needs (4) Transparency and Accountability: How difficult is it for a member of the ICANN community to find out the answers to (1) and (2)? k
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
i had wanted to contribute thoughts to last week's conversation but the transcript is not posted yet, i was waiting for that.
i'm not sure about this suggestion, but... i'm wondering if we should have a question that covers how hard it is to figure out whether the recommendation was implemented?
as i was reading many of the recommendations, and ICANN's custom slide set descibing how "all of them are implemented", i found myself thinking "it should not be this hard to figure out whether they did X appropriately."
ideally, and i hope this is an SSR2 recommendation, there should be one public document to cover 'transparency and accountability wrt implementation of recommendations in this report'.
so maybe the 4 questions are (first 3 as worded in the doc): (1) Execution (2) Assessment of Efficacy (3) Relevance and Current Needs (4) Transparency and Accountability: How difficult is it for a member of the ICANN community to find out the answers to (1) and (2)?
On the leadership call earlier today, we observed that the reason for our questions about the SSR1 recommendations is because it is not necessarily easy to determine what was done to implement the recommendations, and in some cases, the ICANN staff that did the implementation have moved on. Negar pointed out that ICANN is putting together a way to better track the resolution of review team recommendations going forward. The is good, and it will help future review teams, but it will not help us. Russ
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
On the leadership call earlier today, we observed that the reason for our questions about the SSR1 recommendations is because it is not necessarily easy to determine what was done to implement the recommendations, and in some cases, the ICANN staff that did the implementation have moved on. Negar pointed out that ICANN is putting together a way to better track the resolution of review team recommendations going forward. The is good, and it will help future review teams, but it will not help us.
yes, negar covered this at the F2F. i'm not convinced that means we should ignore this issue for the purposes of evaluating these recommendations. a related concern may motivate another question, or modifying this one. whether the recommendation is worded in a way that is amenable to assessment of its successful implementation. so something like "Is the recommendation phrased in way conducive to assessment of its implementation? Maybe we can cover this with another question, but I think we need to accommodate for recommendations that are problematically vaguely worded... k
clarification: istme we might find it useful to modify the questions after we try to fill out the answers a few times. but it seems perfectly fine to start w these. sooner is better, i assume.. btw ssac recently reviewed all ssac reports since 2010 or so, to see if they needed repeating/revisiting. similar goes but i think russ' questions are structured better. notably, we were each asked to volunteer to take on 1-5 reports to review and provide judgement on. some overlap to get more than one pair of eyes. it took a few tries to convince earnest "volunteers" ;) are we doing this kind of divide-and-conquer? k
KC:
clarification: istme we might find it useful to modify the questions after we try to fill out the answers a few times. but it seems perfectly fine to start w these. sooner is better, i assume..
btw ssac recently reviewed all ssac reports since 2010 or so, to see if they needed repeating/revisiting. similar goes but i think russ' questions are structured better.
notably, we were each asked to volunteer to take on 1-5 reports to review and provide judgement on. some overlap to get more than one pair of eyes. it took a few tries to convince earnest "volunteers" ;) are we doing this kind of divide-and-conquer?
I think we need to see how easy or hard it is to reach consensus on the first few, and then once we have some agreement on the level of detail that needs to be in the table, we can assess the best way forward. Russ
Russ,
On 10 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
To ease the comprehension and the assessment of the recommendations and their implementation, it may be good to add to the table the focus area and may be sub-focus area of the recommendation. The SSR1 used 3 focus area: 1- Scope and Structure of ICANN’s SSR Responsibilities 2- Effectiveness and Implementation of the SSR Framework. 3- Understanding the Risk Landscape and Contingency Planning Example in the attached file… HTH —Alain
Russ
On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason.
I look forward to our call tomorrow.
Russ
<SSR1-Rec-Table-v04.docx> _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Hi everyone, Due to some urgent domestic commitments, I won't be able to join today's meeting. Please accept my apologies. I shall follow up through transcripts and mailing list. Naveed - On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 17:15 ALAIN AINA, <aalain@trstech.net> wrote:
Russ,
On 10 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
To ease the comprehension and the assessment of the recommendations and their implementation, it may be good to add to the table the focus area and may be sub-focus area of the recommendation.
The SSR1 used 3 focus area:
1- Scope and Structure of ICANN’s SSR Responsibilities
2- Effectiveness and Implementation of the SSR Framework.
3- Understanding the Risk Landscape and Contingency Planning
Example in the attached file…
HTH
—Alain
Russ
On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason.
I look forward to our call tomorrow.
Russ
<SSR1-Rec-Table-v04.docx> _______________________________________________ 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
This mail below did not get the expected traction. But once again, i want to emphazise the followings: 1- we should not be taken the recommendations without referring to their context in the SSR1 report 2- The SSR1 recommendations are related to the 3 focus areas below used by the SSR1 team for their review 3- it is therefore important that we make sure everybody read the SSR1 report, the 28 recommendations implementation report, but also the ICANN Strategic plan, the ICANN SSR framework which are influenced by the implementation of some the SSR1 recommendations. Hope this helps —Alain
Begin forwarded message:
From: ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Please review the first 5 SSR1 recommendations for the call tomorrow Date: 13 September 2018 at 13:15:16 GMT To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: ICANN SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org>
Russ,
On 10 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
To ease the comprehension and the assessment of the recommendations and their implementation, it may be good to add to the table the focus area and may be sub-focus area of the recommendation.
The SSR1 used 3 focus area:
1- Scope and Structure of ICANN’s SSR Responsibilities
2- Effectiveness and Implementation of the SSR Framework.
3- Understanding the Risk Landscape and Contingency Planning
Example in the attached file…
HTH
—Alain
Russ
On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
As part of the agenda for tomorrow, we will be looking over the SSR1 recommendations. We will take them each in turn. I doubt we will get through more that five on the call tomorrow, so if you are prepared to talk about the first five, that should be adequate preparation.
The Bylaws are pretty clear about our task regarding the SSR1 recommendations.
Section 4.6 (c) (iv) The SSR Review Team shall also assess the extent to which prior SSR Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect.
At the face-to-face meeting in Washington, I shared a way of thinking about this task. I repeat it here in the hopes it will be easier to prepare for tomorrow's call.
Was there an attempt to implement the recommendation? (In all cases, the answer is "yes")
Is the recommendation still relevant today? If not, write a short statement saying that it has been overcome by events. If so, assess whether the implementation has the intended effect.
If so, write a short statement saying so. if not, is this something we want to see more work on?
If so, write an SSR2 recommendation about it. If not, write a short statement with the reason.
I look forward to our call tomorrow.
Russ
<SSR1-Rec-Table-v04.docx> _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:Ssr2-review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Alain: I must say that I am a bit confused by your note. First, we talked about the reading at the face-to-face meeting in August. So, by this time, I hope that all RT members have read the SSR-related part of the ICANN Bylaws, the SSR1 report, the SSR1 implementation report, the ICANN Strategic plan, and the ICANN SSR framework. Second, I would expect the person that signed up to facilitate the discussion of a particular SSR1 recommendation has reviewed the context in the SSR1 report. Others should do the same. Third, you point out the three focus areas in the SSR1 report. Are you suggesting this provides a better order for us to cover the recommendations? If so, I think the unanswered questions is forcing us to skip some for the time being. If not, then I did not understand your point at all; please try again. Russ
On Oct 4, 2018, at 2:35 AM, ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net> wrote:
This mail below did not get the expected traction. But once again, i want to emphazise the followings:
1- we should not be taken the recommendations without referring to their context in the SSR1 report
2- The SSR1 recommendations are related to the 3 focus areas below used by the SSR1 team for their review
3- it is therefore important that we make sure everybody read the SSR1 report, the 28 recommendations implementation report, but also the ICANN Strategic plan, the ICANN SSR framework which are influenced by the implementation of some the SSR1 recommendations.
Hope this helps
—Alain
Begin forwarded message:
From: ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net <mailto:aalain@trstech.net>> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Please review the first 5 SSR1 recommendations for the call tomorrow Date: 13 September 2018 at 13:15:16 GMT To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> Cc: ICANN SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>>
Russ,
On 10 Sep 2018, at 18:31, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
Last week, we talked about the information that we need to collect in a table. I put together a template for the table, and asked the vice chairs to review it. Attached is the resulting structure for the table. At this point, I invite the whole review team to review it. Is there anything that we need to capture that this does not capture?
To ease the comprehension and the assessment of the recommendations and their implementation, it may be good to add to the table the focus area and may be sub-focus area of the recommendation.
The SSR1 used 3 focus area:
1- Scope and Structure of ICANN’s SSR Responsibilities
2- Effectiveness and Implementation of the SSR Framework.
3- Understanding the Risk Landscape and Contingency Planning
participants (4)
-
ALAIN AINA -
k claffy -
Naveed Bin Rais -
Russ Housley