Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review: Difference between revisions
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
==Board Action and Implementation Planning== | ==Board Action and Implementation Planning== | ||
The board addressed the topic of the final report at its regular meeting on July 22, 2021.<ref name="bdreso">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-07-22-en#2.a Resolutions of the Board, July 22, 2021</ref><ref name="dashboard" /> In keeping with its updated processes, the board issued a scorecard<ref name="scorecard">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-scorecard-22jul21-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - SSR2 Scorecard], July 22, 2021</ref> categorizing the recommendations contained in the report under six headings. The board attached a 53-page rationale for its decisions.<ref>[[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/rationale-ssr2-22jul21-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Rationale for Resolutions regarding the SSR2 Final Report], July 22, 2021</ref> The six categories in the scorecard were each tied to either approval, rejection, or the placing of recommendations in pending status: | The board addressed the topic of the final report at its regular meeting on July 22, 2021.<ref name="bdreso">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-07-22-en#2.a Resolutions of the Board, July 22, 2021</ref><ref name="dashboard" /> In keeping with its updated processes, the board issued a scorecard<ref name="scorecard">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-scorecard-22jul21-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - SSR2 Scorecard], July 22, 2021</ref> categorizing the recommendations contained in the report under six headings. The board attached a 53-page rationale for its decisions.<ref name="rationale">[[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/rationale-ssr2-22jul21-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Rationale for Resolutions regarding the SSR2 Final Report], July 22, 2021</ref> The six categories in the scorecard were each tied to either approval, rejection, or the placing of recommendations in pending status: | ||
* Recommendations the Board approves, subject to prioritization, risk assessment and mitigation, costing and implementation considerations; and recommendations that the Board approves with the understanding that they are already fully implemented; | * Recommendations the Board approves, subject to prioritization, risk assessment and mitigation, costing and implementation considerations; and recommendations that the Board approves with the understanding that they are already fully implemented; | ||
* Recommendations the Board rejects because they cannot be approved in full; Maarten Botterman, in his blog post announcing the Board's action on the final report, explains: | * Recommendations the Board rejects because they cannot be approved in full; Maarten Botterman, in his blog post announcing the Board's action on the final report, explains: | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
===Board Rationale=== | ===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 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 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 [[Resourcing and Prioritization of Community Recommendations]] draft proposal 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" /> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||