[RSS GWG] Proposed Agenda for Teleconference #9

[Lars-Johan Liman]

[I tried to send this yesterday half an hour before the meeting, but it
went out from my personal mail address and got stuck in the list filter.
Here goes again. This was _before_ the meeting.]

Hi Kurt!

Thank you for this!

Much is good in here, but I'll limit my comments to a few views that may
help us exploring this further. See inline comments.

kurt at kjpritz.com 2020-06-24 14:56 [-0700]:
> ...
> 2. When first presented, I thought the PRS Board was the equivalent,
> in role, of the SAPF. After listening to the conversation, I see that
> is not the general opinion. How does the important SAPF oversight role
> fit in?

In my view (which may not be shared by others) the board is very much
NOT the SAPF, in the same way that the PTI board is not the policy
setting function for the IANA. I see the SAPF as dealing with policy and
strategy, and the PRS is the tool for implementing it.

Does it help to view the relationship between the SAPF and the PRS like
the one between the IAB and the IANA (for protocols), or the NRO and the
IANA (for numbers). They provide goals and instructions for the IANA,
and the PTI executes using these.

> ...
> 4. I would like to take each of the other roles described in RSSAC037
> (e.g., finance, removal / designation, monitoring, secretariat) and
> make them a box in the PRS “org chart” or indicate in which of the
> current boxes that function resides.

Very sound idea. +1 to that. I would also like to note that some of them
may not fit _inside_ the actual PRS organization (i.e., the LLC, as
spoken of), but may need to reside elsewhere.

> 6. Lastly, there was a discussion that the RSOs might no longer have
> an advisory committee to report to the Board - due to the sort of
> circular conflict that an ICANN “contractor” can also speak directly
> to ICANN’s boss. That sort of arrangement does not bother me. I think
> a function as important as this should have a direct communications
> line to the Board, and the advisory committee would also serve as a
> check and balance on the ICANN-RSS relationship.

There are interesting seeds in here. We need to explore this further.

> Thank you for reading this.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman