[RZERC] FINAL RZERC Feedback on the Updated Plan for Continuing the Root KSK Rollover

[Russ Mundy]

I think that Jim makes some excellent points in the email so I want to withdraw my previous +1 and support sending the previously agreed letter in that form.  I’m not sure if our procedures cover a ‘minority view’ letter but, if they do, and the group wants to send such a version perhaps the simplest solution would be to send a separate ‘minority view’ version without the sentence Peter objected to.

Russ

> On Aug 3, 2018, at 7:44 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> 
>> On 2 Aug 2018, at 21:13, Wessels, Duane via RZERC <rzerc at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps the best path forward is to change the format of our response somewhat. Instead of a straight letter from the chair, it can be formatted as a report, much like the formats used by SSAC and RSSAC.  The report can have an "Acknowledgements and Minority Viewpoints" section.  Peter can address his particular objection here, as can any other member.
> 
> I’m sorry. I cannot agree to this approach. I object.
> 
> First, I think our charter obliges us to hold a meeting to make a decision like this.
> 
> Second, we have already reached (rough) consensus on the agreed text. It doesn’t seem right to revisit that decision or materially change the content/format of the text that we have already agreed. Or to do that after our established deadline(s for making changes to the document. That sets an unhealthy and unwelcome precedent which could well make future RZERC decision-making unworkable.
> 
> Third, if we now make material changes to the current document, I will have no opportunity to review those changes or discuss them because I’ll be on holiday from now until the 13th. That doesn’t seem fair or reasonable. So I object to that too. And I suppose I might as well object to further material changes to the text we’ve already agreed because the time for making those changes has passed.
> 
> IMO, the pragmatic approach should be to publish the current document as-is since it’s the agreed rough consensus view of RZERC. Contrary opinions or concerns about that text can and should be addressed through some sort of supplementary side letter. This is the simplest solution. It also avoids adding more moving parts that can delay getting our response out the door.
> 
> I have no objection in principle to using Duane’s suggested format for future documents. It just can’t IMO be introduced for our response to the board next week. We shouldn’t make hasty decisions at very short notice. More so when that looks from the outside like an attempt to rewrite our already agreed consensus position. We need to think very carefully about that.
> 
> I will be making no further public comment on this matter until Aug 13th at the earliest.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rzerc/attachments/20180806/522b5445/signature.asc>