[RSS GWG] My thoughts on the GWG work relating to PRS so far

[Ted Hardie]

Hi Naela,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the group.  Some comments in-line.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:31 PM Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I said during last week’s call that I would send an email to the group
> about my thoughts on PTI and what I am observing in the discussions about
> PRS.
>
>
>
> We started out with the idea that PRS would be a PTI like organization
> focused on managing the Root Server System. Please allow me to go over some
> of the characteristics I am seeing in PRS that are quite different from
> PTI, and some of the elements that are not clear to me.
>
>
>
> Agreements:
>
> Please review this section of the PTI website on how the agreements are
> setup:  https://pti.icann.org/agreements. As you can see, ICANN org holds
> the agreements with the different stakeholder groups. The PTI agreements
> for the performance of the IANA Functions are subcontracts between PTI and
> ICANN org.  This is unlike the proposed PRS model that holds agreements
> with the RSOs for example.
>

That's an important difference, and it is good to highlight it.  My
understanding, though, is that this arrangement is partly a historical
artifact based on what entities existed when they were signed.  At the time
the IETF MoU was signed, for example, the IETF relationship to ISOC was
such that the IAB and IETF chair signed on behalf of the IETF community,
where supplemental agreements were signed by ISOC (e.g. the 2018 agreement,
which was signed by Portia as IAD) and are now signed by the IETF LLC (as a
successor to the MoU).

I don't want to change the PTI arrangements, obviously, since those emerged
out of a long public process, but I also believe that we're not bound by
similar history here, since these contracts/MoUs will be created for the
first time.


>
>
> Role of the PTI Board:
>
> The PTI Board works on PTI organizational matters such as helping the
> organization define the strategic plan, oversees the development of the
> budget and oversees the annual financial audit. The PTI Board does not
> handle operational matters. Taking the current role of the PTI board into
> consideration, I believe our discussions are envisioning a different role
> for the PRS board that seems more operational.
>

I'm not quite sure what you mean by operational here.  The board of PRS
will have a fiduciary role in managing the subsidiary.  PRS will have some
operational duties (e.g. measurement of the functions set out in the
contracts), but it will not itself operate any of the root server system.

>
>
> The SAPF:
>
> The SAPF is envisioned to maintain relationships with both the ICANN and
> PRS Boards.
>

The drafting group met last week and one of the points discussed was this
dual reporting structure.  We also came to the conclusion that having it
report to both boards was not the right path forward.  Stay tuned for an
updated proposal on this point.



> It is not clear how this will work. Which board does the SAPF refer its
> recommendations to?  I have concern that this would create confusion for
> stakeholders and PRS and PTI staff alike about the role of each of the
> boards and what goes to which board. I think we need extra clarity on
> responsibilities here.
>
>
>
> Managing the RSS:
>
> None of the discussion thus far have answered the question for me about
> where the management of the RSS actually happens. My understanding of this
> work is that it is supposed to create a structure to manage the root server
> system. For example, which of the structures we discussed so far handles
> the addition or removal of a new root server operator?
>


   - The SAPF (a community body) sets the standards for the service.
   - PRS as a professional service has a measurement function that
   determines whether those standards are met.
   - If they are not being met by an RSO and remediation doesn't repair
   that, then the PRS Board convenes a multi-stakeholder review panel to
   address it.


(If a root server operator stood down, then the PRS Board would convene the
review panel without the other steps.)



> I assume the SAPF serves that function but it is not clear to me. And if
> it is the SAPF, how does the SAPF communicate its recommendation to PTI to
> execute the work? Is it through the ICANN Board? What about other functions
> such as performance monitoring?
>
>
>
> I hope this email is constructive. I am pointing out where I am seeing
> confusion as the IANA liaison. I am also hesitant to suggest alternative
> solutions due to the need for me to stick to my observer/liaison role.
>
>
>
It's always useful to have questions on a proposal, as it helps show where
the gaps are (either in structure or explanation), and I appreciate you
taking the time.

regards,

Ted



> Thank you,
>
> Naela
>
>
>
> *Naela Sarras*
>
> *Director, IANA Operations*
>
> *ICANN*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSSGWG mailing list
> RSSGWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssgwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssgwg/attachments/20200720/cfe51a9e/attachment.html>