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_______________________________________________SSAC-Evo-Reso-WP mailing list_______________________________________________By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https:// ) and the website Terms of Service (https:/www. icann. org/ privacy/ policy / ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.www. icann. org/ privacy/ tos