Page History

• Community webinars scheduled and information shared with the review team via email.
• Briefing confirmed for 25 June 2017. Postponed per Co-Chairs.

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)

Subteam rapporteurs to prepare a short status update for the presentations to the SO/AC groups in Abu Dhabi

• ICANN SSR team requested to provide list of questions ahead of setting up the meeting.
• 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 TBDProposed time slots sent to subteam via email.

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.

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 asked for briefing could be scheduled in Abu Dhabi - in progress.
• 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.

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