[RSS GWG] RSS-GWG Checkpoint

[Ted Hardie]

Dear Colleagues,

This note is meant to summarize where I believe we are in the process and
to list areas where I believe we have consensus and where we are still
working out issues.  I would be happy to have discussion of it on the list
before the meeting, but I plan to put it as an agenda item for Thursday as
well, so that we can see if there are any disagreements on the state of
play.

I believe we have consensus on the set of input documents: RSSAC037,
RSSAC038, RSSAC042, the Concept Paper, the RSS GWG charter, and SAC106.

I believe that we have consensus that the future model does not need to
retain the altruism of the current financial model and that the structures
of NewOrg therefore need to permit, but not require, money to flow to Root
Service Operators.

I believe that we have consensus that none of the work undertaken within
this group will change how the root zone is updated, maintained, or
distributed to the Root Service Operators by IANA; those functions will not
move into NewOrg, but remain where they are.  As a result, NewOrg will need
to work with IANA on some matters, e.g. by providing an updated list of
Root Service Operators should there be a change in the set of providers.

I believe we have a consensus on a model of NewOrg, though there are
significant details to work out in that model.  Broadly, the current
proposal is that NewOrg will act as the legal entity that holds one side of
a set of MoUs or contracts with the Root Service Operators.  These will, as
noted above, allow but not require the Root Service Operators to receive
funds.   NewOrg will ensure that the financial terms are available on a
uniform basis.  The operational and technical terms of these MoUs will be
set by policy actions undertaken by a community-based group focused on
strategy and architecture (the SAPF).  These terms are communicated to and
executed by NewOrg’s board, which will also manage staff or contractors
engaged in performance monitoring and measurement. The key points of the
relationship between the community group and the board will be set out in
the founding documents of NewOrg.  A secretariat function for the board and
the SAPF will also be overseen by the board of NewOrg, though its functions
are likely to be contracted.

I believe we have consensus that when a Root Service Operator gives notice
of an intent to step away from the role that the NewOrg Board convenes a
multi-stakeholder Review Panel, which carries out the Removal Function.

I believe we have consensus that when the performance monitoring and
measurement functions indicate that a Root Service Operator is not
fulfilling the MoU terms set by the SAPF that NewOrg will request
remediation to bring the service back to a state where it is in
compliance.  If that does not succeed and the Root Service Operator does
not give notice, then the NewOrg Board may convene a multi-stakeholder
Review Panel to carry out a Removal function.

I believe we have consensus that the board of NewOrg also convenes
multi-stakeholder panels when a Designation function is needed.  I believe
we also have consensus that these are separate functions from the Removal
function and not necessarily carried out at the same time or by the same
panel.  The structure of the system described so far implies that the
criteria used to determine when a designation occurs would be set by the
SAPF as the community-based group with the relevant technical expertise,
but I believe confirmation of this within the group is still required.

I believe we have rough consensus that NewOrg needs to be related to ICANN
in order for it to have a reasonable financial model.  It is typical for
the registry for a zone to provide funding for the operations of that zone,
and a relationship to ICANN would enable the root zone to follow that
model.  I believe that we have rough consensus that a focused subsidiary of
ICANN is an appropriate way for that relationship to be expressed.  The
founding documents of the subsidiary and its bylaws would set the terms of
the relationship of NewOrg to ICANN and to community groups like the SAPF.
Specific legal structures have been mentioned, based on parallels to the
IETF LLC or PTI, but I believe we need to have legal advice prior to
finalizing the specific legal structures we will propose.

I believe we do not yet have a sufficiently concrete proposal for the
composition of the SAPF.  While there is an agreement that it is
community-based, the method by which it is populated needs further work to
ensure both that it will have the right expertise for the task and to
ensure that it does not inadvertently create a circular relationship with
the Root Service Operators.

I believe we do not yet have an agreed proposal for the composition of the
board of NewOrg.  Balancing organizational and fiduciary expertise with a
strong awareness of the context of the work is important.  So too is a
community sense that the board will be responsive to community concerns and
direction.  While discussions have included proposals by which different
groups would provide board members, these have not yet concluded with a
draft outcome or a consensus position.

I hope this brief checkpoint is useful in sparking discussion in the group
on the state of our agreement and on our next steps.  There is a Google doc
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbbxoYN09SJkXa-2zB14I6WVYVzttRqlJ1Twv67Iw2U/edit?usp=sharing>
as well, with this set of conclusions in bullet form, if that is easier to
work from.  Feel free to comment directly on that, or reply to this email.

Best regards,

Ted Hardie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssgwg/attachments/20200803/ace1c8da/attachment.html>