[RSS GWG] Follow-up from teleconference #13

[Geoff Huston]

Hi,

I note in the document SSAC 106 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-106-en.pdf) the SSAC recommends:

"Recommendation 2: The SSAC recommends that the SSAC not be given any operational roles in any standing committees, operational committees, or other bodies that emerge from the deliberations of the GWG, but is open to invitations to participate in an advisory capacity, consistent with SSAC’s charter, experience and capabilities.”

My reading of this is that the SSAC is saying that they are open to invitations to advise but not sit on any body.

There is a tension between size and ability to make decisions so I would see the benefit in a group closer to 10 individuals rather than 30.

I think that there is benefit in representation / liaison from:

- the ICANN Board
- the Root Server operators
- the IETF / IAB
- ccTLD registries
- gTLD registries
- PTI
- PRS


I also note that the SSAC document recommends: Recommendation 4: The SSAC recommends that bodies involved in the ongoing oversight of the RSS be reviewed regularly to ensure that the RSS is both meeting its commitments and that it remains responsive to evolutionary needs and changing environmental factors as appropriate.

I am unaware that any other groups listed above have thought about this and provided their perspectives.

regards,

   Geoff


> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, Carlos.
>> 
>> As a reminder to the group, we did ask on the call for folks to answer two questions via email in advance of our next meeting:  how large should the SAPF be?  which groups must be represented for the SAPF to be able to make the policy decisions which will be under its remit?
>> 
>> I know that there were significant differences of opinion even in the short time we had last Thursday, and I am hopeful we can get some discussion going in advance of the next call.
>> 
>> best regards,
>> 
>> Ted
>>