i filled in all my @@ (marks where i had text), and i've made a ton of comments on the dns ssr ws doc and the recommendations (and a few in the q&a). few other issues, that i'm not sure if/where to put in the docs. (1) i am wondering if the final report doesn't need a whole category about measurement and data sharing. so many of the recommendations seem to be asking for measurement/ data sharing. but it may be that just because the perceived need for measurement is so pervasive, making it a separate section would be unbalanced. so i didn't try to do it. but maybe we should consider separately collating all the specific measurements we are asking for, and what the specific questions we believe those measurements would answer. because i think we do not do a great job of tying our asks to the need/purpose/question/harm right now. we ask for too much, and we cannot prioritize measurements until we prioritize harms we're trying to mitgiate/prevent. which means we need a taxonomy.. and if if we can't document (maybe even quantify) a serious need/problem that the measurement will inform/address, we should drop it. (2) in this context, i think we probably need to ask for a new curated data section of the web site, and we should specify urls. maybe something like. https://data.icann.org -- for raw data sets https://statistics.icann.org -- for derivative data sets. and then explicit data sets we think should go in there, and important metadata (like dates when page is updated, which often seem missing, e.g., http://www.dns.icann.org/imrs/stats/ indeed, i think we should recommend that every page have a 'content last updated' date, because trying to figure out what's stale and what's current on the web site seems beyond even icann staff i ask for help ;( e.g., icann has recently posted http://www.icann.org/opendata/, which some vague promises, no date, and a promise for updates as progress is made.. this is not what we want. we should be specific about each type of measurement, that every update must include a date, type of data, expected use of data, questions the data can answer, how to get the data, usage terms. now to elephants in the room: (3) many ssr gaps are rooted in the lack of balance of stakholders in the presumably multistakeholder process. in particular, there is no significant representation of public interest/consumer protection issues. it's amazing how broad the consensus seems to be on this point. in this context, i find the report puzzling in many places, asking for things as if they haven't been asked for many times, including in ssr1. are we still having the report on explicit analysis of ssr1 implementation? because i think it's important to state in our new set of recommendations that some of these attempts to get more attention to consumer protection have been going on for over a decade. and that if (when) they fail this time, we have a backup recommendation to put in play. that could have the word 'regulation' in it, but maybe we figure out a way to make sure that if icann fails to achieve what we consider needed in terms of substantial progress on consumer protection, then icann should publish a report stating that it failed to achieve ssr2 recommendations within 12,24,36 months. e.g., one of our recommendations could be " icann org should seek explicit consensus with 4-5 consumer protection agencies on how abuse should be defined and handled, before any discussion with CPs, and publish an explicit summary of this consensus, or exactly where the consensus got stuck, within 12 months of this report." then, if they fail, there is a document that asserts it, that at least advances this groundhog day conversation to the next step? (4) a related recommendation could/should be an ongoing function to track progress of these recommendations, and prove monthly reports to SSR2, and explicitly solicits our feedback on whether the recommendation was implemented as we intended. i.e., don't wait for SSR3 who may have no idea what we even meant back in 2019... (5) i hear a growing number of others argue that we dont see real change on consumer protection (SSR issues) until the fiscal architecture changes. we can discuss, but one example: "center of excellence". is a nice idea, but so long as it answers to icann, and so long as icann answers to the industry that solely funds it, i don't see how it will effect change. what is its incentive structure? it is likely to just waste many millions generating the appearance of "something is being done". i think it's our responsibility to point out the fundamental incentive misalignment and lack of stakeholder balance in the ssr context, and that it is not rational to expect anything to change while the incentives/money flows remain as they are. which means there needs to be a center of excellence, but it needs to be funded by several governments, industry, as well as icann, and have statutory support for access to data (at least for researchers to data from r&rs within their own country.) it must not require publication review from funding sources. it must be truly independent. that would have a chance to escape the stalemate wrt consumer protection. or if we cannot get consensus on such an idea, those of us who agree can add it to the report as a minority view. k