We sent the evo-reso report to OCTO and got a quick response from Paul
Hoffman, which we, the work party, need to consider:
> Greetings agian. Matt passed the preview to OCTO, and I read it
> through. It is comprehensive and useful, but I am very concerned
> about Recommendation 2: "The SSAC recommends that the ICANN
> organization continue to encourage collaboration and facilitate
> coordination among the various namespace communities." Please
> consider passing my concerns on to SSAC.
>
> --Paul
>
> To the best of my knowledge ICANN org has *never* encouraged
> collaboration or facilitated coordination "among the various
> namespace communities". Nothing in the body of the document
> (that I could find) talks about ICANN org doing this, which is
> good: we shouldn't be doing it. As far as I know, ICANN org is
> not working with any of the systems listed in Section 5, not
> even mDNS. From Section 9, SAC113 and RFC 9476 will not help
> with collaboration or coordination at all: they will give two
> unmanaged namespaces where there is likely to be collisions at
> the second level.
>
> OCTO sponsoring the Emerging Identifier Technologies panels is
> about exposing the ICANN community to the identifiers, not to
> encourage collaboration or facilitate coordination. The outcome
> of each one of these has been education of the community and no
> follow-up with the representatives of the identifiers. Education
> is not collaboration or coordination.
>
> If SSAC wants to recommend that ICANN org *start* "to encourage
> collaboration and facilitate coordination among the various
> namespace communities", it would be useful for this document to
> say how we might do that and what the harmsand benefits might
> be. Given that you want to publish the document in the next few
> weeks, it would likely be better to simply remove this
> recommendation from the current document and start new work
> talking about possible work to encourage collaboration and
> facilitate coordination. (To be clear, I'm quite skeptical that
> such work would have more benefit than harm, but SSAC might have
> a different opinion.)
Now, we did discuss this at length, and I believe it was the
referenced EIT panels that we were talking about. Paul is very clear
that those panels were *not* meant to be any sort of forum for
collaboration, and were *only* to inform the community.
Given his comment on this, I agree that we should reconsider
recommendation 2, with, as I see it, two likely outcomes:
1. We simply remove the recommendation.
2. We change the wording to refer more directly to the Emerging
Identifier Technologies panels, and say something like, "The SSAC
recommends that the ICANN organization continue to keep the ICANN
community abreast of new developments through such means as the
Emerging Identifier Technologies panels that have been presented at a
number of ICANN meetings."
If we choose path 2, we need to consider whether it's a separate
recommendation or gets subsumed into recommendation 1, which already
says, "The SSAC recommends that the ICANN organization continue to
track and provide regular updates to the ICANN Board and community on
both alternative protocols that make use of the domain namespace, and
efforts to create mitigations and reduce risks inherent in the
coexistence of multiple namespaces and protocols."
I'd like to try to get this resolved this week by email, rather than
having another work party call, so let's please have a discussion here
on the work party mailing list.
Thoughts?
Barry
