[RZERC] public comment processes for fun and profit

[Jim Reid]

> On 15 Jun 2017, at 18:25, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
> 
> first and foremost, I believe it is necessary for the sake of transparency
> and follwoing the genesis of this committee, that we submit the final draft
> procedures document to a public comment process.

I do not. Doing that is both ridiculous and unnecessary overkill.

1. RZERC is not “making policy”. It’s not a formal AC or SO in the way that GAC or gNSO are (=> comment periods for almost everything). Adding a public comment process to its internal decision-making will turn RZERC into a very different beast from what it was meant to be. We should think *very, very* carefully before going down that path.

2. The scope and internal workings of RZERC are already clear to anyone who cares: a vanishingly small number of people IMO.

3. It will be a huge mistake to put the inner workings of RZERC through any sort of public comment procedure. If RZERC did this, it would set an unwelcome precedent for repeating that every time if/when it gets real work to do. Or when the next chairman is selected. Or... We might as well do away with RZERC altogether and just have ICANN run a public consultation every time any changes to the root are suggested.

4. RZERC’s discussions are already open. Anyone outside RZERC who cared about this procedures document has been able to comment on it or ask questions. Nobody has. QED.

5. RZERC has no mechanism for running a public comment process about its workings. Our charter does not allow this anyway. We are authorised to run public consultations about changes to the root that impose potential risk. That’s all.

IMO RZERC should avoid mission creep and adding process that doesn’t need to exist.