Denise, I had also the same feeling. It was unfair to have hearing only in one side and only consider ICANN resources to other hand. As SSR2 RT volunteer there are a number resources we are spending as volunteer for the better of this review. It sound like ICANN board does not count RT resources as vital as that of ICANN. It should also be noted that there are many risks associated with travelling taking into account recent tendency of plane disappearing to unknown places and no one can find it. Moving forward we need transparency among the team members and respect in both side. We are just volunteer and we are committed for good work. That only should be acknowledged. SSAC and any other board members should be there to work with the team to take forward this review not otherwise. One more request, we need to have plans on how to update our constituency and community members on our progress. Regards, Matogoro On Aug 23, 2018 20:44, "Denise Michel" <denisemichel@fb.com> wrote:

FYI - Following information pulled together last Nov. for bakcground

23 June Board letter <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> – Input on ToR <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...> . *(SSR2 discussed, shared views with Board-appointed SSR2 member)*

Key points in Board letter (SSR2 responses in parentheses):

· Board made suggestions regarding work plan, budget *(which were addressed in other documents)*

· Board asked Staff to provide a different ToR template *(was not done)*

· Board asked SSR2 to re-define “security” *(a community-vetted definition used for many years in the Security Framework; Board-appointed SSR2 member previously suggested this but it was not supported by most Team members and thus was not included in ToR)*

· Board asked for the minimum number of dissenting RT members required for minority views *(ToR states SSR2 follows GNSO’s practice, which means any single member may offer a minority view)*

3 Oct Board letter <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_s...> – Scope of Subteam (Subteam lead replied 5 Oct <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_s...>.; SSR2 Co-chairs replied 6 Oct <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_s...>; )

Key points in letter (SSR2 responses in parentheses):

· Board asked for SSR2 work plan *(Board wasn’t aware that it was published previously)*

· Board expressed concern on scope of Subgroup 2’s “audit plans” to be addressed and asked for changes *(the subteam leader and SSR2 co-chairs explained that the subgroup leader used the term “audit” to refer to an information gathering exercise on issues related to SSR1 recommendations, which the Team is required to assess. This had been clarified many times before. The Team asked for a dialogue to address the Board’s concerns to reach a mutual understanding. That has not happened.)*

· Board asked subteam to change its scope before meeting in LA the next business day. *(See above, and that was not a feasible deadline)*

· Board-appointed Team member subsequently emailed that the Subteam could “continue with their LA Workshop” *(it’s not clear why the Board felt the need to grant the Team permission)*

28 Oct Board letter <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> – Suspended SSR2 *(SSR2 discussed letter in scheduled outreach meetings)*

Key points in letter (SSR2 responses in parentheses):

· Board cited SSAC letter to Board and “a number of SO/AC chairs expressing concern about the composition, process and structure.” *(SSAC didn’t provide input or discuss anything with SSR2Team so Team didn’t know what the SSAC objections entailed; no other SO/AC chair shared their purported concerns with SSR2)*

· Board suspended SSR2’s work pending responses from SOs/ACs, “except for engagement sessions, and use your scheduled face-to-face meeting on Friday to review the feedback from those sessions.”

· Board will “formally ask the SOs and ACs to consider whether they believe there is a need to adjust the scope, terms of reference, work plan, skill set and/or resources allocated to SSR2.”

*From: *Ssr2-review <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kaveh Ranjbar <kaveh.ranjbar@board.icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 1:29 PM *To: *SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ssr2-review] Pointers to some of correspondence form the past

Hello team,

For reference:

#1: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ ranjbar-to-ssr2-rt-23jun17-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>

#2: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-October/000631.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_s...>

#3: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ crocker-to-ssr2-28oct17-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>

and you can find them and consequent correspondence at:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence-2017 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>

All the best,

Kaveh.

_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review