Hi all, Firstly, I would like to congratulate KC and Matagoro. KC this is a great honor and it is well deserved. I am confused about recent activities by the team. I do not feel like someone capable to judge the work of CCT RT and how the ICANN Board responded. I do not agree that we should send any public comments as a team. If some of you need to do so, please do it personally. Since it is not within the scope of SSR2 RT, I do not feel comfortable with the approach that we must submit public comments as a team. I believe that most of us still remember our Meeting with Board caucus in Kobe. We all agreed with suggestions given by Board members, to rather have fewer recommendations that counts than a bunch of them that are not that relevant. The latest development doesn't go that direction. We still have a lot of recommendations, and some of them even don't address SSR at all. We started cleanup in Marrakech, but it turned out that we have wasted our time. The process is not continued by the entire team as we expected. Anyway, we'll have to do the cleanup at one point, and in my opinion, it should be done before team members put substantial effort into writing something that may be dropped later on. I also have some doubts about the recommendations regarding abuse. We are the review team and our tasks are to recognize and point out possible SSR risks and propose high-level actions in how to prevent or mitigate them. We are not entitled to give an order, nor to ignore standard ICANN bottom-up procedures for policy change and new contractual obligations. I agree that abuse is a significant issue regarding our work, but we must be careful about how recommendations are written and what we can ask to be done. Regards, Žarko
Hello,
On 3 Oct 2019, at 08:22, Žarko Kecić <Zarko.Kecic@rnids.rs> wrote:
Hi all,
Firstly, I would like to congratulate KC and Matagoro. KC this is a great honor and it is well deserved.
I am confused about recent activities by the team.
I do not feel like someone capable to judge the work of CCT RT and how the ICANN Board responded. I do not agree that we should send any public comments as a team. If some of you need to do so, please do it personally. Since it is not within the scope of SSR2 RT, I do not feel comfortable with the approach that we must submit public comments as a team.
On the plenary call held on the 25 September 2019, i said that it is inappropriate for us as a review team to comment on the implementation plan and that the way people will perceive the comment may not serve us. I suggested that people comment as individual.Apparently a majority in support of team comment won and an action item was recorded about that. I went further by saying that the most important thing for us as team, with what is going on with the CCT-review report is what can we learn, especially with writing our recommendations from our work. Despite my opposition to the team comment, i read the draft proposed by Denise and can’t see anything related to SSR, to our work, excerpt possible demoralisation of team members. What i see, is just a statement against board actions without consideration of the details contain in the resolution 2019.03.01.03
I believe that most of us still remember our Meeting with Board caucus in Kobe. We all agreed with suggestions given by Board members, to rather have fewer recommendations that counts than a bunch of them that are not that relevant. The latest development doesn't go that direction. We still have a lot of recommendations, and some of them even don't address SSR at all. We started cleanup in Marrakech, but it turned out that we have wasted our time. The process is not continued by the entire team as we expected. Anyway, we’ll have to do the cleanup at one point, and in my opinion, it should be done before team members put substantial effort into writing something that may be dropped later on.
I also have some doubts about the recommendations regarding abuse. We are the review team and our tasks are to recognize and point out possible SSR risks and propose high-level actions in how to prevent or mitigate them. We are not entitled to give an order, nor to ignore standard ICANN bottom-up procedures for policy change and new contractual obligations. I agree that abuse is a significant issue regarding our work, but we must be careful about how recommendations are written and what we can ask to be done.
In summary, we seem to still be hostage of a bad understand of our role and scope of our work. Looking into depth in small issues, focusing on particular circumstances and going into prescription mode. Thanks —Alain
Regards,
Žarko
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Žarko, all, On 03.10.19 10:22, Žarko Kecić wrote:
I do not feel like someone capable to judge the work of CCT RT and how the ICANN Board responded. I do not agree that we should send any public comments as a team. If some of you need to do so, please do it personally. Since it is not within the scope of SSR2 RT, I do not feel comfortable with the approach that we must submit public comments as a team.
After thinking about your e-mail for a few days, I partly agree with your statement. Why only in part: on the one hand I think it is important that the reviews follow a coherent and comprehensible methodology. By this I mean the continuous support of stakeholders as well as the balance of mutual expectations. Perhaps not everything ran or runs optimally, but it would be important to work out and address the issues. Perhaps this did not happen consistently and ultimately led to frustration among those involved. On the other hand, I personally don't believe that we should address certain aspects again in public - especially since I think they have been dealt with. I therefore propose that we should balance our expectations and enter into a continuous dialogue with the board. That would lead to a constructive and hopefully acceptable result for all stakeholders.
I believe that most of us still remember our Meeting with Board caucus in Kobe. We all agreed with suggestions given by Board members, to rather have fewer recommendations that counts than a bunch of them that are not that relevant. The latest development doesn't go that direction. We still have a lot of recommendations, and some of them even don't address SSR at all. We started cleanup in Marrakech, but it turned out that we have wasted our time. The process is not continued by the entire team as we expected. Anyway, we'll have to do the cleanup at one point, and in my opinion, it should be done before team members put substantial effort into writing something that may be dropped later on.
I agree with the last of these points in particular. We should ensure that we have a final draft of the report by end of November at the latest. We should also try to give a priority and, if necessary, a potential effort (high-level view) to the recommendations. This could help to simplify the final evaluation of the outcome and provide a better planning basis. I am open to any criteria that might support this.
I also have some doubts about the recommendations regarding abuse. We are the review team and our tasks are to recognize and point out possible SSR risks and propose high-level actions in how to prevent or mitigate them. We are not entitled to give an order, nor to ignore standard ICANN bottom-up procedures for policy change and new contractual obligations. I agree that abuse is a significant issue regarding our work, but we must be careful about how recommendations are written and what we can ask to be done.
I am also d'accord that we should not make any concrete recommendations or any particular (technical and/or organizational controls) - especially if certain recommendations result in a PDP. Talk to you all soon and hope to see you in Montreal! - Boban. -- 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: Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Sebastian Röthler, Dr. Jörg Schweiger Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller Eingetragen unter Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
participants (3)
-
ALAIN AINA -
Boban Krsic -
Žarko Kecić