[RSS GWG] Moving forward after our work session in The Hague

[Verd, Brad]

Dear colleagues,



Thank you for the productive discussions in The Hague. I would like us to keep this momentum going.   There were a number of fundamental topics that emerged during the four ICANN74 work sessions<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Wmb4oJIFD9QBoVd262dJLK1-gqq5VAZAWfRiFnTDD_UD5DUCFBeVg8rKu1de4drjdBQpDCBlW6Nr60BezhK9i4BbpJcNxrNyZWj4hROQHCAXCmjSWambs5euZEdfQw94Y79lmHzURs2V_icbgJOx5EYD6AaXPJ_wui2EsmPZbon3LhpgIt-1RDjdjx51ry9KUVtf3gN_ENPxfuRRDbl8MGvnakuAP7AMOz__wDNTMBaJRgN_FgFnYdBICVqGGJRF/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F7ZEzBw>. while Success Criteria(RSSAC058) are an important part of assessing a proposed governance structure, they do not (on their own) really identify how interests align or diverge.  The following are some of the fundamental topics that were identified from our discussions:



  *   Defining capture (i.e., what does it mean for the RSS operating as a whole to remain independent from any single source of external control or single set of external interests)
  *   RSO independence (yields and gains) vis-a-vis the finance function (i.e., what degrees of freedom will the RSOs, individually, be expected to give up in the new structure and what benefits will this produce in return)
  *   Separability/portability of RSS governance (i.e., is there a currently un-stated requirement that the RSS governance structure should be operated on the assumption that it could, if needed, be easily transferable away from ICANN to another governing framework)


Moving forward, we will need to identify and clarify the types of decisions to be made within the RSS governance structure (e.g., designation and removal decisions, budget making decisions, supervisory and appointment decisions, etc). In each case we will need to identify:

  *   What is the nature of the authority that needs to be vested in a given decision-making group
  *   Who are the people whose interests must be protected in the decision-making process (checks & balances)
  *   How to balance the interests of those who are affected by decision-making
  *   What is the expected tempo of decision-making (hours/days/months)



Each of these topics is interrelated and any resolution to one issue may need to be reviewed and later modified as we continue through our list as a group.  The exercise of talking through these fundamental decision-making principles should shed light on the kind of structure people want to create (bicameral vs single committee with differential voting rights; how many committees/chambers are needed; compositional requirements; etc).


I believe the most productive path forward is to focus first on the three topics identified in our discussions at The Hague. I would suggest that we identify members to address each of the topics and have them present over the course of the next three meetings (28 July, 11 August, 25 August). That should put us in a better position to start the larger “decision-making” discussions to follow.  We should have a good feeling of the pace of our discussion early on and can then plan accordingly for what we want to cover during ICANN75 and our yet to be determined workshop which we are targeting for October.



As we have talked about as a group NEITHER model as currently conceived actually meets many of the Success Criteria and it seems based on our those same discussions that it is premature to decide which path to go down before we talk through and find alignment in the fundamentals listed earlier.  However, in the effort of transparency and oversharing, Carlos will be sharing materials that ICANN org developed previously about the Supporting Organization model at the request of the RSOs.  This is for you to go through while we make progress on the foundational points above.



Lastly, there were also a few administrative topics that came up in The Hague, that, as promised I have added to the agenda for this Thursday’s discussion.

  *   Documenting our discussions and our decision-making process so that the community and the ultimate decision-makers in this matter can clearly understand the basis of our recommendations for a governance structure
  *   Non-GWG members contributing to our process



Good progress in the coming weeks will position us favorably for a potential in-person workshop in October. Carlos and I will work with ICANN org on preparations and keep you informed.



I look forward to continuing our work together.



Regards,

Brad


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssgwg/attachments/20220713/f3ae73d4/attachment-0001.html>