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

[Wessels, Duane]

Thanks Russ,

Since RZERC operates transparently and its mailing list archives are public I'd say you can certainly share it.

DW

On 8/7/18, 12:13 PM, "Russ Mundy" <mundy at tislabs.com> wrote:

    Duane,
    
    I want to give you particular thanks for leading RZERC and us through the development and publication of the first RZERC advice to the Board.
    
    I agree that it would be good to discuss if procedures should be updated to reflect what we’ve learned through this process.
    
    I do have one question:  Can I now share the document we produced with SSAC?  They have not yet finished their response and some members have asked to see the RZERC response.
    
    Thanks again,
    
    Russ
    
    > On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Wessels, Duane via RZERC <rzerc at icann.org> wrote:
    > 
    > Thank you very much, Peter.  I appreciate everyone's effort, input, and patience in getting this
    > advice completed by our deadline.  I will ask our staff support to prepare the final version
    > and post it here to the list.  Kaveh, as the Board representative, could you please deliver
    > RZERC's response to the Board.
    > 
    > With the experience of RZERC's first advice behind us I would like to suggest that we take
    > time in a future meeting to debrief and consider whether or not changes to our procedures 
    > are warranted.  Since our August regular meeting is coming up quickly and already business that
    > we need to discuss, I feel we should wait until September for the procedures discussion.
    > 
    > DW
    > 
    > 
    > On 8/7/18, 9:32 AM, "Peter Koch" <peter at denic.de on behalf of pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
    > 
    >    Duane, all,
    > 
    >    On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 08:13:38PM +0000, Wessels, Duane via RZERC wrote:
    > 
    >> Steve and I have been discussing some options for moving forward on this advice.  Referring to our procedures, I feel that our current situation fits the definition of Rough Consensus, under which minority viewpoints are considered but not necessarily accommodated.
    > 
    >    thank you for this suggestion, which perfectly is in line with our Operational Procedures.
    >    While I still firmly believe that the additional sentence is unjustified, I do consent
    >    with the gist of the main message.  Given that this is our first response, I would,
    >    after careful consideration, still not without a headache, not want to add a minority
    >    view statement.  For clarity, this should mean the version posted by Steve on 31st July
    >    would be submitted unaltered.
    > 
    >    Best regards,
    >       Peter
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > RZERC mailing list
    > RZERC at icann.org
    > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rzerc