Hi, All. It has been a crazy week on the ground in Abu Dhabi and events and discussions have been evolving and a bit unpredictable (following the SSAC’s and Board’s letters). The good news is that several SSAC members were keen to talk more about issues that were raised and asked Eric to help grab Team members who were at the conference centre at the time for an informal chat. I think this was a really positive thing. These SSAC folks asked for specific SSR2 information to be delivered to them in a specific way that they would find more useful. For example, they asked that we take our topics/activities and tag each one with “SSRS1” or “SSR2” or both. Anything that is developed or “re-packaged” will, of course, be posted on the SSR2 list for everyone’s review and comment. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Please email if there are further questions. Best, Denise Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 11/2/17, 9:14 AM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ssr2-review@icann.org> wrote: Geoff (et al), Sorry for the confusion here. During an random encounter, a few of us were tapped to have a chat with some of the SSAC folks. I just shot a note out to the people who were standing around. There was no intent behind this selection, and no intended omission of personnel. The note in question is just intended to summarize our team’s status and membership to date in a way that SSAC can ingest (no positioning intended). That said, thank you for sending the below note to the entire team. As you suggest, it has been a rather intense week, and it seems some wires have been inadvertently crossed. Eric On 11/2/17, 6:13 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote: Eric, Just as a data point, I questioned paf and Rod last night as to whether they expected a letter as an outcome of your meeting with them yesterday, and they informed me that they had no expectation of any such letter. I assume they have no concerns about me reporting this information back to the entire SSR2 list, but I will copy them on this response so that they can feel free to comment directly without my mediation. As I was not invited to this meeting between a subset of SSR2 members and SSAC then I suppose I have no role in drafting a followup letter from SSR2, unsolicited or otherwise. I an writing to the entire SSR2 list because I continue to have concerns as to the way the SSR2 team is currently being chaired, and I feel it is appropriate to share my most recent concern about your actions here to the SSR2 mailing list so as to ensure it is part of the team’s archive of material. Firstly, I note your mail and my earlier response was only shared with a subset of SSR2 members. I apologise to other SSR2 members in my lapse in not including them in my response, which I hope this message rectifies, as I have added both your note Eric and my earlier (as yet unanswered) request for clarification as to the context of this proposed action to this posting to the larger SSR2 mailing list In this case Eric, my concern is that I have gained the impression that these actions step beyond reasonable norms of clear, open, transparent and inclusive leadership. Your note to to a subset of SSR2 members present here at ICANN inviting them to a session to draft a followup letter makes me very uneasy. I draw what I think is an obvious conclusion from your note that this proposed letter represents SSR2, yet refers to a meeting held on Wednesday with SSAC leadership where you only invited a subset of SSR2 members, and a meeting where you have not to date subsequently provided back to the entire SSR2 list any summary as to the matters discussed at the meeting. If you had anticipated that this proposed letter from SSR2 to have any weight and substance as representing SSR2, then I fail to understand how you could justify such an anticipation under these circumstances, particularly in your distinguished role as one of the co-chairs of this review. It is entirely possible I am mistaken in this matter and the context of “that letter to SSAC” does not in fact play any role in the carriage of SSR2 itself and this is merely a letter from a number of individuals, who are not in any way representing SSR2, yet have chosen to write formally to the SSAC. As to why these individuals feel the need to have such a letter placed on SSAC’s records of correspondence is not a question I can answer. Also, I would naturally expect that in such a limited context, such correspondence from these assorted individuals naturally could not make any undertakings or representations of SSR2 itself, as not all SSR2 members are even aware that such a restricted meeting took place yesterday, and some SSR2 members could well be unaware of the discussions that ensued and whether or not any undertakings in SSR2’s name were made by the individuals present there. I am personally sorry to raise this serious matter just as a rather difficult week draws to a conclusion, but I believe strongly that no rationale of expediency justifies any lapse of standards in offering to the entire SSR2 group careful and considered guidance within the principles of clear, open, transparent and inclusive leadership of SSR2, which I believe is appropriately expected of you as one of our co-chairs in this leadership role. Geoff > On 1 Nov 2017, at 5:54 pm, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I’m sorry to be dense here Eric, but I’m in the dark as to “that letter”. This was not a topic of the 4pm discussion, so I assume that the discussion you are referring to here is a sub-group's meeting with SSAC’s Rod and Patrik earlier in the day. Is that assumption correct? Or are you referring to something else? > > thanks, > > Geoff > > > >> On 1 Nov 2017, at 5:34 pm, Osterweil, Eric <eosterweil@verisign.com> wrote: >> >> Hey all, >> >> Let’s get together and work on that letter to SSAC, from our discussion today. I am available any time between 8 and our team’s meeting with the Board (at 1). As a straw man, I propose 10am. We can meet at the reg desk and find a room from there. >> >> Can you all please ack this time, or propose an alternative some time tonight? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Eric >> >> Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...

Dear Denis, is Rod a new SSR2 RT member representing SSAC to the team? or appointed ICANN Staff? Regards, Matogoro Sent from Windows Mail From: Rod Rasmussen Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎November‎ ‎2‎, ‎2017 ‎6‎:‎01‎ ‎PM To: Denise Michel Cc: Patrik Fältström, SSR2 Review Team Email List Thank you very much for this Denise, I think this clears up the confusion introduced by the term “letter” that I’m perceiving was used in prior communications and caused concerns. "Letter" implies a formal document or outreach which we didn’t believe was discussed nor what we were expecting. To clear up things on the thoughts of the folks from the SSAC in the room, we were looking to help your team by providing suggestions of ways to document things primarily for your use and potentially community communications, and of course for us to have a look at what you can share with our team in SSAC to better understand the issues you’re facing and potentially give further input. I’d suggest it is best to pass anything you develop and that we may provide as input back and forth via our appointed members to keep to good practices. Cheers, Rod On Nov 1, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> wrote: Hi, All. It has been a crazy week on the ground in Abu Dhabi and events and discussions have been evolving and a bit unpredictable (following the SSAC’s and Board’s letters). The good news is that several SSAC members were keen to talk more about issues that were raised and asked Eric to help grab Team members who were at the conference centre at the time for an informal chat. I think this was a really positive thing. These SSAC folks asked for specific SSR2 information to be delivered to them in a specific way that they would find more useful. For example, they asked that we take our topics/activities and tag each one with “SSRS1” or “SSR2” or both. Anything that is developed or “re-packaged” will, of course, be posted on the SSR2 list for everyone’s review and comment. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Please email if there are further questions. Best, Denise Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com On 11/2/17, 9:14 AM, "ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Osterweil, Eric via Ssr2-review" <ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ssr2-review@icann.org> wrote: Geoff (et al), Sorry for the confusion here. During an random encounter, a few of us were tapped to have a chat with some of the SSAC folks. I just shot a note out to the people who were standing around. There was no intent behind this selection, and no intended omission of personnel. The note in question is just intended to summarize our team’s status and membership to date in a way that SSAC can ingest (no positioning intended). That said, thank you for sending the below note to the entire team. As you suggest, it has been a rather intense week, and it seems some wires have been inadvertently crossed. Eric On 11/2/17, 6:13 AM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote: Eric, Just as a data point, I questioned paf and Rod last night as to whether they expected a letter as an outcome of your meeting with them yesterday, and they informed me that they had no expectation of any such letter. I assume they have no concerns about me reporting this information back to the entire SSR2 list, but I will copy them on this response so that they can feel free to comment directly without my mediation. As I was not invited to this meeting between a subset of SSR2 members and SSAC then I suppose I have no role in drafting a followup letter from SSR2, unsolicited or otherwise. I an writing to the entire SSR2 list because I continue to have concerns as to the way the SSR2 team is currently being chaired, and I feel it is appropriate to share my most recent concern about your actions here to the SSR2 mailing list so as to ensure it is part of the team’s archive of material. Firstly, I note your mail and my earlier response was only shared with a subset of SSR2 members. I apologise to other SSR2 members in my lapse in not including them in my response, which I hope this message rectifies, as I have added both your note Eric and my earlier (as yet unanswered) request for clarification as to the context of this proposed action to this posting to the larger SSR2 mailing list In this case Eric, my concern is that I have gained the impression that these actions step beyond reasonable norms of clear, open, transparent and inclusive leadership. Your note to to a subset of SSR2 members present here at ICANN inviting them to a session to draft a followup letter makes me very uneasy. I draw what I think is an obvious conclusion from your note that this proposed letter represents SSR2, yet refers to a meeting held on Wednesday with SSAC leadership where you only invited a subset of SSR2 members, and a meeting where you have not to date subsequently provided back to the entire SSR2 list any summary as to the matters discussed at the meeting. If you had anticipated that this proposed letter from SSR2 to have any weight and substance as representing SSR2, then I fail to understand how you could justify such an anticipation under these circumstances, particularly in your distinguished role as one of the co-chairs of this review. It is entirely possible I am mistaken in this matter and the context of “that letter to SSAC” does not in fact play any role in the carriage of SSR2 itself and this is merely a letter from a number of individuals, who are not in any way representing SSR2, yet have chosen to write formally to the SSAC. As to why these individuals feel the need to have such a letter placed on SSAC’s records of correspondence is not a question I can answer. Also, I would naturally expect that in such a limited context, such correspondence from these assorted individuals naturally could not make any undertakings or representations of SSR2 itself, as not all SSR2 members are even aware that such a restricted meeting took place yesterday, and some SSR2 members could well be unaware of the discussions that ensued and whether or not any undertakings in SSR2’s name were made by the individuals present there. I am personally sorry to raise this serious matter just as a rather difficult week draws to a conclusion, but I believe strongly that no rationale of expediency justifies any lapse of standards in offering to the entire SSR2 group careful and considered guidance within the principles of clear, open, transparent and inclusive leadership of SSR2, which I believe is appropriately expected of you as one of our co-chairs in this leadership role.