[RSS GWG] Reporting and discussion topics

[Ted Hardie]

Hi Brad,

Three main points in reply; please forgive the top posting.

I appreciate your sharing your views on the recent drafting session.
Having discussed this with other attendees, I would say that there is
considerable overlap but not full agreement on the content and tenor of
that discussion.  Rather than attempt to resolve those differences post
facto when there is no contemporaneous record, I propose we adopt a simple
rule:  any meeting of GWG members supported by ICANN staff will be recorded
and minutes provided.  If there is any executive session in such a meeting,
it must be clearly on the agenda in advance and any conclusions must be
taken in a recorded meeting (either a subsequent meeting or a separate part
of the meeting which had an executive session).

I appreciate your bringing forward concerns about "capture" as a guiding
principle behind some of the work in RSSAC037. As in any threat model, it
is useful to be explicit about the threat.   I would personally appreciate
it if this were, in fact, a good more explicit, in particular in regards to
the scope of the concern.  If the concern is that a specific root server
operator might be captured, there are clear elements in RSSAC037 which I
understand to read on that risk.  If there are concerns for capture of the
mechanism by which norms for the root service are set, that's a different
set of risks and thus a different set of potential responses.  Clarity
about who might undertake such capture and to what end would be very
useful, as that would help the group understand if the SAPC, the PRS board,
or some other entity would be responsible for resisting that capture.  If
you would like to write that up for the group as an individual or with
Tripti (given your joint history there), I'd appreciate it.  If you feel it
should be referred back to RSSAC for an official answer instead, please
propose a liaison.

Lastly, you made some comments about the timeline.  Speaking as chair, the
group is not chartered as a standing body, but was given a work plan at its
inception.  You can review the timeline here:
https://community.icann.org/display/soacabout/Work+Plan.  As I understand
it, we cannot ourselves unilaterally change that timeline; we might propose
new dates to the ICANN board, but it would then be their decision to make
any adjustments.  I expect that a new work plan that stretches four years
into the future, as your comment suggests, would need considerable
discussion, since it would change which seated Board would consider the
output of the group.

Speaking as an individual appointed to the group, I accepted the position
with an understanding of the timeline based on the work plan, and I'm sure
others did as well.  Stretching the work plan to that degree would likely
result in churn, as different members' other responsibilities came to the
fore.  Given the difficulty this group has had in sustaining the effort to
produce and review these documents, I do not think the additional time
would be a guarantee of better results.

regards,

Ted Hardie


On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:43 PM Verd, Brad via RSSGWG <rssgwg at icann.org>
wrote:

> Fellow GWG members,
>
>
>
> I have wanted to report on the ideas and perspectives that have been
> discussed informally at the recent drafting sessions, sessions to which
> everyone in this group is invited. In these twice-weekly drafting sessions,
> attendees have gone through the document as chartered by the group Chair,
> in an effort to get it to a “done” state based on feedback from the GWG
> members.  Due to timing and scheduling of meetings, there hasn’t been an
> opportunity to do so. From these discussions in the drafting sessions,
> there were some very key points raised and discussed. I thought it was
> important to share my interpretation of events with the larger GWG group
> for open discussion.
>
>
>
> What I report below is done without attribution since as it was pointed
> out at the most recent GWG meeting that these calls are not recorded or
> minuted.  These are topics of concern raised by the RSOs and shared via the
> RSO representatives to the GWG drafting sessions in hopes of moving the
> document forward. As the drafting groups’ discussions progressed, it became
> clear there was misalignment in the fundamental interpretation of what was
> asked of the GWG.
>
>
>
> *RSO Point of view:*
>
>    - *From the RSO’s… “The RSO’s believe that RSSAC037 is an agreement
>    hammered out over four years and eight workshops, and while changes were
>    expected through this process, any change would need to be justified and
>    agreed upon by the RSO’s.”*
>    - The statement made by a GWG member, “The Board chartered the GWG
>    because RSSAC037 wasn’t adequate enough.  If RSSAC037 was good enough then
>    the ICANN Board would have just implemented it, so the RSOs need to keep
>    that in mind if they have issues with any changes being proposed by the
>    GWG.”
>    - I took the opportunity to remind everyone of RSSAC’s intentions when
>    they completed RSSAC037 and subsequent actions that run counter to that
>    interpretation.  It was the RSSAC that recommended to the ICANN Board to go
>    to the community and get input (RSSAC038).  It was the RSSAC that worked
>    with the ICANN Board Technical Committee and ICANN org to draft the concept
>    paper and create the GWG in a goal to get community input.  It was always
>    the intent of RSSAC, which has been shown by its efforts, to get community
>    input on this body of work.
>    - The feedback I received from the GWG members was that they were
>    surprised by RSSAC being the original requestor of community input.  It was
>    my interpretation at this time that this was an “ah ha” moment for the
>    people in this drafting session.  That maybe their original interpretation
>    of the request from the ICANN Board was inaccurate and we need to rethink
>    things.
>    - It was clear to me that this needed to be shared with the larger GWG
>    group as it would seem that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the
>    base values behind the GWG since the beginning..
>
>
>
> *Need to engage the RSOs:*
>
>    - Given the discussion around RSSAC being the initiator of community
>    review and action, a GWG member on the drafting call stated that given this
>    new data point, if the output from the GWG doesn’t have support of the
>    RSOs, then the GWG effort would be a failure.
>    - A GWG member suggested getting the two groups (RSOs and GWG)
>    together.  It was  said: when laws are made the House and Senate come
>    together with their differences and work them out in committees and maybe
>    we need to do that here.
>    - This further validated to me that this was an “ah ha” moment that
>    had just transpired in this drafting session, and that we needed to have
>    this discussion with the larger GWG given the fundamental misinterpretation
>    a number of members had been working under.
>
>
>
> *Capture:*
>
>    - There was one “guiding principle” that we (the RSOs) didn’t document
>    in RSSAC037 but drove the entirety of the work.  The RSOs, through the work
>    of RSSAC, questioned every part of RSSAC037 to ensure they were preventing
>    capture of the root.  It was an unspoken and undocumented guiding
>    principle.
>    - With that now in the mind of the other GWG members, the RSO
>    representatives pointed out numerous parts of the GWG process that had
>    unknowns or were not understood and therefore in the RSOs mind was ripe for
>    capture.
>    - The other GWG members on the call, now with this new perspective,
>    understood that principle and agreed that it should be addressed.
>
>
>
> *Unknowns or “black boxes”:*
>
>    - In the GWG process there are a number of “black boxes” that take an
>    input and provide an output, but the GWG has chosen to not define the
>    details of those black box processes. In many of those unknowns the RSOs
>    have concerns that need to be documented and addressed before any public
>    comment.
>    - Given the previous “ah ha” moments, the GWG members on the call
>    agreed that these unknowns needed to be cleared up.
>
>
>
> *Timeline:*
>
>    - There seems to be a sentiment within the GWG that we need to get
>    this “DONE” on a timeline.
>    - GWG members on the call implied as much.
>    - I reiterated to them that getting the output correct was more
>    important than meeting any timeline.
>    - I shared that it took 4+ years of work for the RSSAC to complete
>    their proposed model which they have stated needed some meat added to
>    it.
>    - It then took the ICANN Board 1.5 years to respond because they had
>    never been presented with a challenge like the implementation of RSSAC037.
>    - So for the GWG to think they need or should get this done in 6
>    months or a year I feel is wrongly motivated.
>    - Had GWG taken RSSAC037 and polished the corners and put more meat on
>    the bone where needed, then maybe it could be completed in this short
>    timeframe.
>    - Given the deviation of the trajectory that was RSSAC037, in my
>    opinion, it might be another 4 years to work this out.
>
>
>
> Overall, I felt that these drafting sessions were some of the most
> productive calls I had been on with GWG members and I felt that we had all
> shared our thoughts, gone through them in detail, and landed on a common
> ground.  However, at the very next drafting session, a few days later, with
> some of the same GWG members, it was as if the discussion points shared
> above and again in my interpretation agreed to never even occurred, and we
> had the same discussion all over again.  At one point, I suggested a way to
> resolve the discrepancy of ICANN Board direction, that if the
> interpretation was that RSSAC037 was so inadequate that the ICANN Board
> expected/wanted such a change in trajectory that it could be easily
> resolved.  The GWG should draft a letter to the ICANN Board stating its
> interpretation and ask for the ICANN Board to affirm it before moving
> forward.  If the ICANN Board comes back and corrects that interpretation
> then we, the GWG, need to rethink our work.
>
>
>
> Moving from reporting on the topics from the drafting sessions, now out
> for the larger GWG membership to digest, I wanted to provide feedback on
> some items that were raised on last week's call that I feel need further
> discussion with the group.  There is some overlap to what I just shared
> from the drafting session, however, I feel it is important to cover them as
> they were brought up during the Executive Session.
>
>
>
> *Timeline of the GWG work:  *
>
> I feel I have already addressed this in public meetings but I can’t
> emphasize this guiding principle enough. “It is more important to get it
> right, than to get it done.”
>
>
>
> A time table should not be a concern.  The GWG was chartered to develop a
> governance structure.  A structure that takes time to develop and is
> embraced by relevant parties is a success.  A structure that is rejected
> quickly, is a failure.  I have been told that we have been given a work
> plan by the ICANN Board that the GWG leadership is trying to meet.  It is
> not out of the question, that if the GWG members feel it is appropriate, to
> go back to the ICANN Board and revise the plan.  It is not out of the
> question given the change in trajectory from RSSAC037 that this process
> could and should take longer.  It is not out of the question that this
> timeline needs to take longer so that we ensure the proper checks and
> balances that have evolved in the ICANN community and process over the
> decades of work be enshrined in what has been described in the GWG document
> as a “new RSS community” outside the ICANN construct.
>
>
>
> *The RSOs feedback coming to the GWG process late. *
>
> It has been stated on at least two calls now that I remember, one public
> and one private (Executive Session) that the RSO feedback is late in the
> game.  The RSOs have had representation in the GWG from the beginning and
> the feedback now is late in the game and therefore should not be acted on
> by the GWG at this time, but be only heard or addressed during the public
> comment period.
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree with this statement.  Yes, it is accurate that the
> RSO representatives have been engaged since the start of the GWG and have
> provided significant feedback.  However, it was only when the GWG got all
> of the different document pieces together into one model that the RSOs were
> able to look at it holistically and provide material feedback.  I believe
> that it is unreasonable to characterize the RSO feedback as coming late to
> the game, since the holistic view of the GWG proposed model didn’t come
> together until very late in January of this year (GWG meeting on January
> 28, 2021).  Allowing for some amount of reasonable time for the RSOs to
> digest the document it was shortly after that, the RSO representatives,
> started to provide significant feedback.  I think it should be the goal of
> the GWG to go after feedback from the affected party in this effort.   It
> is certainly within the remit of the GWG to seek advice or input from any
> group that enables their work.  In the normal ICANN construct, the
> contracted parties might have many conversations with a working group
> throughout the process. With that said I think we, the RSOs and the GWG,
> are all on time.  This is a very important body of work and ensuring that
> all the stakeholders are on the same page as we go through this new
> untested process is paramount.
>
>
>
> *Transparency Concerns: *
>
> Given the recent comments made during private discussion (Executive
> Session) it has been implied that certain parties have been providing
> feedback and holding discussions only in smaller working groups, and that
> this “trend of a lack of transparency” has some GWG members concerned.  I
> can only assume this is in reference to recent discussions in the drafting
> sessions that I was a part of.
>
>
>
> As discussed in the closed Executive Session where transparency concerns
> were raised, I am more than happy to share what transpired in the smaller
> drafting discussions and to highlight the points that were raised and
> discussed in detail.  My intent was to share what was learned in these
> smaller drafting sessions during the regularly scheduled GWG meeting last
> week but it was cut short by the members-only Executive Session.  During
> that Executive Session, It was explained to me that the smaller drafting
> sessions are not on the record since they are not recorded or minuted like
> our bi-weekly GWG meeting.  The RSO representatives have been working under
> the impression that the GWG document was NOT being updated during most of
> the recent drafting group calls, precisely because the GWG group recognized
> there was not agreement from the RSOs. It was in this forum where the
> RSOs have been providing feedback.  To my surprise, there was an
> implication that this feedback was being shared purposefully during a
> non-recorded, non-minuted call and therefore was not in the spirit of
> transparency.  The RSOs welcome transparency and have been championing it
> for the past several years as documented in nearly all of our ICANN
> presentations and activities.
>
>
>
> The RSOs look forward to participating in an open dialogue with the GWG.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brad Verd
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210611/825e0c12/attachment.html>