On Nov 2, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels@verisign.com> wrote:
I think the work party should have this discussion about whether or not to include subjective principles.
I also think it depends on who is the intended audience for this report. If the report is just sort of "RSSAC thinking out loud" and describing what it means to be rogue, then in my opinion it is probably fine to include subjective aspects. However, if this is intended to be advice to future root server governance bodies (e.g. the next phases of RSSAC037 & GWG work) then I think those bodies would have a very hard time acting on subjective aspects of rogueness.
That's an excellent way to frame the question. Personally, I believe that any RSSAC document will likely be used as "advice to future root server governance bodies" (heck, even current root server governance bodies) regardless of what we want. Thus, we should likely be more narrow. This document could say "here is a list of subjective aspects of rogueness from RSAAC037 that might also be used if subjective measurements are desired". That is, let's not pretend that they weren't part of 037, let's instead do the delineation of them, giving the detail for non-subjective facets. --Paul Hoffman