View source for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review

===Board Rationale===
The Board Rationale document is notable for its length - typically, even in complex situations, the rationale is not so long as to require an attachment to the recorded minutes. The board cited Article 4.6 as the basis for the comprehensive and lengthy rationale document: 
<blockquote>The categorization approach allows for additional community consultation and information gathering where necessary, such as where recommendations are not clear or present inconsistencies with advice or other community work and public input. Further, the approach ensures Board accountability to the Bylaws-mandated deadline to take action on the recommendations within six months of receipt of a final report. The Bylaws require that for every Specific Review recommendation that the Board does not accept, the Board must provide a rationale supporting its action.<ref name="rationale" /></blockquote>
The board noted several themes among the recommendations, which in some cases made a particular recommendation impossible to approve as an ''a priori'' matter:
* ''SSR2 recommendations are considerable in number, complex, and have interdependencies with other significant areas of work underway.'' The board noted in its scorecard when such other areas of work were implicated by (or addressed the same subject matter as) a given recommendation. 
* ''Some recommendations contain components that the Board cannot approve, along with components that are feasible, and in some cases already being done.'' Per Maarten Botterman's comment, above, the board rejected these recommendations, even in situations where they agreed in principle with the spirit of the recommendation.
* ''Some recommendations are polarizing, with public comments reflecting different, often opposing views.'' The board implied, as well, that some recommendations were inconsistent with advice from within the community.
* ''Several recommendations repeat, duplicate or significantly overlap with existing ICANN org operations, or recommendations issued by other Specific Review teams.'' The board cited the public comments of [[RySG]], [[RrSG]], [[Public Interest Registry]], and others who commented on specific recommendations that were repetitive or duplicative.
* ''Some recommendations contemplate that the ICANN Board or ICANN org should unilaterally develop policy outside of the GNSO Council’s Policy Development Process.'' This was also noted during the public comment period by RySG, RrSG, and PIR, along with prominent contracted parties [[Tucows]] and [[Namecheap]].
* ''Some recommendations do not clearly address a fact-based problem, or articulate what cost/benefit would be derived or how the desired outcome envisioned by the Review Team would add value and improve security, stability, and resiliency.'' Echoing a common tension between technical attitudes toward security, stability, and resiliency on the one hand, and socially-oriented, policy advocacy stances on the other, the board reiterated its own comments to the previous output of the SSR2 team. Citing both the [[Operating Standards for Specific Reviews]] and the conversations held in the development of the [[Prioritization Framework]] for community discussion, the board repeated the importance of well-crafted, fact-based recommendations that could articulate specific benefits to the stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS.<ref name="rationale" />