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

[Russ Mundy]

Thanks, Duane.   Russ

> On Aug 7, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>