Page History

Advise if the sub-team requires an NDA to access any of the following documents:

• Business continuity plan for PTI.
• Plan for migration
• What kind of failure rollover documentation do you have. Day-to-day. Failure rollover.
• Processes and training.
• A presentation on training and processes documents to a good level of detail. To replace seeing the docs themselves.
• Documented evidence of business continuity test (if it exists)
• A high-level  walk through of RZMS, from perspective of cc and gTLDs (to clarify issues)
• Field verification of RZMS – presentation on controls within the RZMS system
• Documentation that identifies procedures for verifying authorized contact.
• Presentation on relationship between PTI, ICANN and the root zone maintainer, post-transition (with roles and responsibilities, who works where, who have authority)

Review Team members to share expected outcomes of outreach meetings in Abu Dhabi to the list to ensure team is in alignment. 

Review Team members to review the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Confidential Disclosure Framework documents and raise any questions on the list.

• EBERO operator responded with questions for the team. Shared as part of the relevant task on Trello. Response provided by team and shared with SME for progression.
• ICANN has sent a request to EBERO operators to gauge interest.

In progress. Progress of requests is available on the SSR1 Subgroup page.

Provide feedback to the IANA subgroup team on how quickly team can expect access to documents requested once NDAs are finalized and signed.

Break out IANA subteam document requests in order of priority to help expedite access to documents, once NDAs have been finalized and signed.

In progress. KD OK to meet with Eric, date/time TBD.

Respond to ICANN Travel ASAP & make flight reservations to travel to Abu Dhabi for the face-to-face meeeting.

Report to Team on potential room availability at ICANN meeting for sub-group meetings during week.

Send calendar invites for Team meeting days in Abu Dhabi and additional invites as meetings are scheduled.

• Calendar invites for face-to-face confirmed meetings sent to team.

Try www.trello.com and give your feedback on email list. Co-Chairs will assume Team members are comfortable using this unless otherwise informed.

• Access granted and request sent via Trello for all team members to access the SSR2 Review Team boards.

Provide responses to questions on SSR1 briefing: Recommendations 11, 12.

Recommendation 11:

1.     What was happening in the 5 years between when the recommendation was approved by the Board and when a draft consultant report was posted in April 2017?

2.    On the status and deliverables of Rec 11 it says that ICANN has implemented measures of success for the gTLDs, but we haven’t seen how you’ve implemented measures of success for new gTLDs and IDNs. That’s the first check mark, but what we’ve been provided with is a draft report of some ideas that you could do. How is that considered full implementation of this recommendation?

3.     Do you think it is ICANN staff’s responsibility to gather, analyze and publish this data or do you feel that it’s ICANN’s responsibility to facilitate others to do that?

4.     In a commercialized world of DNS service provision where data is considered to be a corporate asset, do you feel that either ICANN or the community at large have access to meaningful metrics? I cite the barriers that exist on information on root servers. Is this a barrier to the entire objective, that access to data appears to be challenging?

5.     The SSR1 review team called out a number of activities that were operational and within staff’s purview and contained in the SSR framework and called for implementation of measurements and metrics.  Was that work done and is it captured anywhere? To clarify, as part of the SSR1 report related to rec 11, the SSR1 review team noted ICANN administration of the new gTLD Program, IDN program, significant SSR related issues that are in the framework. They called for more specific goals, measurements and impact assessment. Was that work done and is it captured somewhere else?

6.     Is there more information on the steps that ICANN has taken in the past five years to facilitate data access and activities that involved other entities that had ownership or responsibilities on related activities?

7.     Broadly, in looking at the dashboard for rec 11 and all the checkmarks including operational items, it’s really unclear how staff defined and measured success related to SSR. It’s hard to see how the basic sprit of this recommendation was implementation, especially with an idea paper from a consultant. But in terms of the last 5 years and what staff did to implement, it’s unclear. Can you gather more information and provide more clarity and facts?

Recommendation 12:  

8.With regards to establishing best practices and integrating these into agreements to which ICANN enters: It’s linked to a paper that raises a whole host of issues and addresses proposed activities but it’s unclear how that then relates to integrating those into agreements into which ICANN has entered over the past 5 years. Can you provide more specific information on how best practices are reflected in agreements that ICANN has entered into?

9.  ‘Addressing SSR practices in MOUs’ links to a page that holds all of the MOUs. Can you provide some quantification of SSR-related practices in MOUs and more information on which ones contain SSR-related practices, which practices they contain, and how all that’s tracked or the implementation is assessed?

10.  Is there any quantification or more detailed information on what the working relationship with the APWG has yielded?

11. Which sections of the revised new gTLD registry agreement does OCTO staff feel advance SSR best practices and objectives?

12. What has changed after the implementation of Rec#12 as compared with the past?

1. In progress

2. In progress

5. Clarity requested via email. Awaiting input from Denise Michel.

6. Clarity requested via email. Awaiting input from Denise Michel.

7. In progress

8. In progress

9. Clarity requested via email. Awaiting input from Denise Michel.

11. In progress

3. Question answered during the call. See meeting record.

4. Geoff Huston (asker) clarified that he feels this is a question for the review team to answer, not ICANN Org.

10. Question answered via email.

12. Question answered during the call. See meeting record.

• Co-Chairs advised if briefing could be scheduled in Abu Dhabi.
• Asked Co-Chairs via email to advise if meeting with members of the drafting team should be scheduled in Abu Dhabi.
• Briefing scheduled for 5 September 2017. Plenary meeting cancelled.
• Briefing confirmed for 25 July 2017. Postponed per Co-Chairs
• Briefing confirmed for 26 June 2017. Postponed per Co-Chairs.

Provide responses to questions from SSR1 briefings (Ops + Finance)

1. To what extent do you work with the relevant standards bodies (UNICODE and the IETF) over the issues with the use of IDNs and longer label TLDs?
2. There are many challenges in IDN WHOIS lookups.  How do we get an accurate IDN WHOIS database for the Incident Handling process?
   

3. How is the expansion of the name space with more gTLDs contributing to the security and stability of the Internet?

4. What metric is being used to ensure a "healthy" DNS marketplace?

5. How does ICANN proactively make sure to implement policy (eg. New gTLD Program expansion) in a secure and stable manner?

6. New gTLD contract has a lot on New gTLDs to make sure they are secure and stable. To clarify, the main means you see to do that in implementation is through contracts, vs.  that as an aspect? Is that the primary means for ICANN to push the SSR remit?

7. Can GDD comment on the failures of both SLAM and EBERO where they apply to RSP failure scenarios, also implementation of EBERO testing took 3 years from implementation of the first new gTLD delegation, no security review of the EBERO’s has ever taken place, what is the justification for that?

8. Can Francisco to brief us on both systems (EBERO and SLAM) from an SSR2 perspective (Rather than the SSR1 implementation perspective)?

9. I’m also looking for not how much departments are spending but how much their spending on EBERO.

10. Who will be the contracting entity for future SOC2/3 audits of PTI?
    

ICANN Org

.

ICANN Org

• Answers provided in Google document and circulated to Review Team when available.
• Clarification requested from Review Team for question 2.

75, b. Provide responses to draft questions for ICANN Chief Innovation & Information Officer (CIO).

75. a. Prepare draft questions for ICANN Chief Innovation & Information Officer (CIO). Questions will be sent to the CIO in preparation for holding a briefing for the RT.

75.b. ICANN Org

75. a. SSR2-RT

75. b. 9 October 2017

75. a. 25 July 2017

• Staff from the ICANN CIO office will be available during the ICANN SSR subteam meeting 9-10 October to answer the questions.
• 75.a. Questions sent to ICANN CIO.

75. a. 25 July 2017

11

Draft note and summary of SSR1 implementation for ICANN to send to SSR1 team members and invite them to share their assessment with the SSR2-RT.

11

14 May 2017

Draft a Statement of Work for specialist technical writer: Co-Chairs to provide guidance on the scope of work and other requirements for the engagement of the technical writer.

Co-Chairs