[RSS GWG] Process proposal: change approach concerning "considerations for implementation"

[Robert Carolina]

Dear Colleagues

I am writing to follow up and clarify a suggestion I made during the most recent GWG online meeting on May 18.

BACKGROUND:

In the Principles working document (“RSS Governance Candidate Principles Discussion Matrix_April 2023 Workshop”) we have divided the description of each principle into three parts. These are:

Part 1: Principle… (Columns 3&6)
Part 2: Description… (Columns 4&7)
Part 3: Considerations for implementation (Columns 5&8)

This three-part description for each Principle began to emerge as we discussed the candidate Principles in detail in late 2022. I propose that we clarify what we mean by describing the Principles using these three parts. I believe this will help us to continue and conclude discussion of the Principles.

I feel the best way to view these is that the description starts in Part 1 with a low granularity very broad description of the Principle. Part 2 is then a more detailed description of the Principle in finer granularity.

Part 3 is currently labelled “Considerations for implementation” without further clarification. In our discussion on May 18, this Part 3 category came under some degree of scrutiny. There seemed to be a concern that discussing “considerations for implementation” presupposes agreement on the existence and validity of the Principle as a whole.

I also suspect that many participants would welcome a finer grained understanding of the Principles under discussion.


SUGGESTION:

I feel that we should take a slightly different approach to Part 3. Everyone should be in no doubt that these are designed to aid discussion and not to close it down.

I suggest we start by re-titling Part 3 as “Interpretation Notes.” I then suggest that we use the Part 3 Interpretation Notes to facilitate discussion at a finer grained level. If anyone is concerned about how Parts 1 & 2 of a given Principle will be interpreted (generally or in specific cases), they can propose an interpretation note for Part 3. This will enhance confidence of all participants that they understand not just what the Principle says but what it means.

In proposing and discussing interpretive notes for Part 3 of any given Principle, I anticipate four possible outcomes.

Outcome 1: No objection to the interpretive note. The interpretive note enjoys reasonable support, no significant objections are raised.

Outcome 2: Deferral to eventual consideration by governance body. The interpretative note highlights a difficult or non-obvious issue or corner case with an observation that this is the sort of thing that the governance body (to be created) will address at some future time when it has been established.

Outcome 3: Re-examination of the Principle. In an effort to provide interpretive guidance, we discover that there is actually serious disagreement about what the Principle really means. In this case, we would revisit Parts 1 and 2 to determine if they need to be revised, split, or abandoned.

Outcome 4: Rejection of the proposed interpretive note. The proposed note is rejected for whatever reasons (unnecessary, too difficult to resolve, too remote a possibility to spend time on, etc)


I would be grateful if we could discuss this during our June 1 meeting as I believe it will set the groundwork for a successful meeting at ICANN77 in Washington.


Kind regards

Rob


--
Robert Carolina
General Counsel
Internet Systems Consortium
+447712007095 (mobile, WhatsApp, Signal)
rob at isc.org
My normal time zone: UTC+0/UTC+1
LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/robertcarolina/

ISC and Internet Systems Consortium are names used by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc (a not-for-profit company) and its wholly owned subsidiary Internet Systems Corporation, both incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in New Hampshire, USA.

This transmission (the email and all attachments) is intended solely for the addressee(s). The contents are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or if this transmission has been addressed to you in error, you must not disclose, reproduce, or use the transmission or read any attachment. Delivery of this transmission to any person other than the intended recipient(s) does not waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply by e-mail to explain receipt in error and then delete.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssgwg/attachments/20230530/f92e7906/attachment.html>