# SSAC Work Session (1 of 5): transcript [0:02] MTS-AV: Thank you. Hello and welcome to the first of five SSAC work sessions. My name is Kathy and I'm the participation manager for this session. [0:10] MTS-AV: Please be advised that this session is being recorded and is governed by the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct, the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior, and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy. [0:21] MTS-AV: Regarding participation today, this session is designed for the internal work and discussion of SSAC members. Observers are welcome to watch the work party conduct its work, but this session is not open for observer participation. [0:34] MTS-AV: for SSAC members. All members have been promoted to panelist status in Zoom. [0:39] MTS-AV: to join the speaking queue. Please use the raise hand feature, even if you are physically present in the room when called upon. Please state your name for the record. You may use the zoom chat with one another, but please note that it is visible to observers in real time. [0:53] MTS-AV: For observers, the speaking queue is limited to SSAC members, and observer chat has been disabled for the session. With that, I'm happy to hand the floor over to Ram Mohan. [1:02] MTS-AV: Thank you, and welcome to our first session. [1:07] MTS-AV: And, let's get the… materials, up. [1:12] MTS-AV: The… [1:15] MTS-AV: And for those of you in the room who've not watched the SSAC in action, you'll get a first glimpse of it. [1:25] MTS-AV: So, welcome to the session, and in general, you'll find that we're [1:32] MTS-AV: We're going to be engaged, and we're going to be, you know, discussing topics, but this is not a typical kind of public forum type of session where [1:43] MTS-AV: everybody from from the audience gets to participate. It's kind of at if it is, if participation is [1:52] MTS-AV: Requested it as at the discretion of the session chairs. [1:56] MTS-AV: So, with that, let's get going. [2:05] MTS-AV: All right, first up on our agenda for today is, Peter will be leading the SSAC in, a discussion of whether the SSAC should, submit a public comment response on the security and stability assessment of SAC 126 [2:18] MTS-AV: Version 1, Recommendation 1. But first, we have an update from Francisco Arias of ICANN Org to the SSAC. Francisco? [2:30] MTS-AV: Thank you. Thank you, Renil. So this is Francisco Arias from [2:36] MTS-AV: The technical services team in GDS, and I can, [2:41] MTS-AV: So, we have been working on the implementation of SAC 126. That's the. [2:49] MTS-AV: A recommendation from SSAC related to DS automation. [2:53] MTS-AV: And we published for public comment the security and stability assessment of the service. [3:00] MTS-AV: A few days ago, on 12th October. [3:02] MTS-AV: The public comment runs until 23 November, 2026. [3:08] MTS-AV: this is again for SAC 126, the first document that was published. [3:16] MTS-AV: The intention is to work, also on. [3:20] MTS-AV: As part of that implementation on, draft amendment language for the fast track RSAP, which is part of the recommendations in SAC 126. [3:29] MTS-AV: We understand there is SAC 126 version 2 that was recently published by SSAC. [3:36] MTS-AV: And we understand that that will follow the normal process of consideration by the board, et cetera, et cetera. [3:42] MTS-AV: And so what we, are, and… [3:48] MTS-AV: have discussed with a few of you in SSAC, and what we intend to do is to continue the implementation, as we have planned for SAC 126. [3:58] MTS-AV: And later, once the war, you know, follows the process and, and. [4:04] MTS-AV: adopt SAC version 2 of SAC 126, then we could, work on the implementation of that one. But we're thinking it's probably better to continue as we have with the plan. [4:17] MTS-AV: For, the current. [4:20] MTS-AV: advice from SSAC so that we don't disrupt the plan we already had, and then later, you know, supplement the faster car support. [4:28] MTS-AV: Whatever it is necessary. [4:30] MTS-AV: as part of version two. So that's the plan we have so far in regards to those two. Thanks. [4:43] MTS-AV: Any questions from SSAC members for Francisco? [4:50] MTS-AV: I'm not seeing any. Thank you so much, Francisco. Peter, over to you. [4:55] MTS-AV: Thank you very much. Thank you, Cathy, for sharing the slides. And thank you also for the invitation to comment on the assessment within the ICANN community, and specifically the SSAC is interested in this topic, obviously. [5:09] MTS-AV: So we read the report and, prepared a draft of, how we might comment, and this session is intended to discuss within the SSAC what this. [5:20] MTS-AV: what others within the SSAC think about this draft, and how we might modify or not modify it. [5:25] MTS-AV: All right, so next slide, please. [5:28] MTS-AV: Hmm, so the background, [5:30] MTS-AV: was already explained by Francisco. I'll, [5:34] MTS-AV: re-outline it, sort of from SSAC perspective, so we published the SAC 126 recommendation, or sorry, report in August 2024, which was adopted about a year later by the board, and, this led to the assessment, within the RSEP policy framework. [5:51] MTS-AV: to investigate what the ASSAC recommended for security and stability, which is what the ASSAC policy prescribes. And there was a [6:01] MTS-AV: assessment conducted, which ICANN commissioned by Inter-IL Consulting Group, and this is the report, that [6:08] MTS-AV: We're now looking at with this feedback. [6:12] MTS-AV: And, yeah, so since the assessment, two things have happened. So the CYCLON26 V2 came out, and also, the new BCP came out, which sort of gives a summary, overview of how to do DS automation, and it is informed by the, Appendix B of the initial V1 report that we had. [6:29] MTS-AV: which is superseded by this PCP. So we have a V2 document that says our appendix is essentially replaced by the ITS consensus. [6:36] MTS-AV: All right, next slide. [6:38] MTS-AV: So overall, [6:40] MTS-AV: It looks like, the assessment is pretty much in line with what we had suggested, so, a good response would be to say that we agree with the assessment's conclusion and the positive findings, and particularly it says that CDS and CDNS key-based automation, it's probably… [6:57] MTS-AV: properly implemented with the necessary conformance checks and all of this does not raise any significant security and stability issues under the RCEP evaluation. [7:06] MTS-AV: And so that's like the general result that I think we should be communicating. [7:11] MTS-AV: There is a lot of other details that we could be communicating, which I will be talking about in the following slides. [7:17] MTS-AV: We don't need to put all of this into the comments, it's comprehensive and, [7:22] MTS-AV: If you think it's too much, let's remove some of it. I think the aim should be that the process concludes [7:29] MTS-AV: Essentially, In as little time as possible, and it does not cause any. [7:35] MTS-AV: Confusion or complications when there is later amendments, which are… [7:39] MTS-AV: Once the board adopts the V2 document. We should make sure that that doesn't collide with what is now being approved, within the RSAC framework. [7:48] MTS-AV: Okay, so, next slide. [7:54] MTS-AV: Thank you. [7:55] MTS-AV: the [7:56] MTS-AV: Public comment request essentially poses two questions to the ICANN community. The one question is whether, people who comment think that all the security and stability issues are correctly identified, and the second question is. [8:07] MTS-AV: Whether the mitigations and measures proposed in the final sections of the assessment are. [8:14] MTS-AV: Proportionate, implementable, and sufficient. [8:17] MTS-AV: The first question, the security and stability issues are correctly identified, but there are some qualifications. So, for example, one [8:25] MTS-AV: issue that is, Declared a residual issue is the multi-signer stuff, which, [8:31] MTS-AV: is essentially when you have two different providers that hold their own keys, and they sign a zone independently, they both have to get their DS record into the parent, and they have to do some other coordination between themselves. [8:42] MTS-AV: So that's indeed something that is, [8:45] MTS-AV: Complicated to get right in practice, but [8:48] MTS-AV: From the perspective of a DNS validator. [8:52] MTS-AV: which is a resolver, or in this case, a parent entity that processes the CDS or CDNES key record. [8:58] MTS-AV: They don't have any means of identifying that this is a multi-signer setup. It might just as well be a multi-key setup of one provider, and there is no reason to treat multi-signer different from any other setup. [9:10] MTS-AV: There is consistency requirements that are already part of the standard and hard requirements, and they take care that the multi-center stuff [9:17] MTS-AV: Does not derail. So… [9:22] MTS-AV: Yeah, so one qualification is that the multicenter residual concern seems to be a little overstated. [9:29] MTS-AV: The second one is the bootstrapping precondition. When you apply DNS bootstrapping with authentication, there is a precondition that the name servers of the [9:38] MTS-AV: the child domain have to be in an assigned zone themselves. That's a precondition, it's also part of the standard, it's a hard requirement. [9:44] MTS-AV: And it's also unclear why that is labeled a residual concern. [9:48] MTS-AV: The… Third of the three… [9:52] MTS-AV: Besido concerns is about reporting, which is vaguely defined in both what the SSAC proposed and what the ITF consensus is. [10:00] MTS-AV: The reason for this is that registries and registrars have, in the development phase of the standard, expressed that it's highly business model and business relationship dependent what they do, and also it is specifically not a security and stability issue, because those are addressed by technical checks. [10:17] MTS-AV: So it's more an operational matter, which the assessment also admits in one of its sections. [10:22] MTS-AV: And so it's certainly a good idea to give recommendations and advice on reporting of errors. But the question is whether it's a residual concern, really. [10:32] MTS-AV: About the second question, whether the mitigations are sufficient, proportionate, and implementable, yes, broadly, yes. There are some details that I will get into on the next slides, which I will skip now for brevity. [10:44] MTS-AV: Where the requirements for, the implementation could be more succinct, or, sometimes, for example, they restate what a standard says, but then the restatement is a little. [10:57] MTS-AV: It's difficult to restate things exactly, right? So… And there's some things lost in translation, and it might be better to incorporate things for reference. [11:05] MTS-AV: All right, next slide. [11:06] MTS-AV: So, one general suggestion is to incorporate things by reference instead of rephrasing them. [11:14] MTS-AV: So, one of these, is, for example, what are the validation checks you have to do when you figure out that. [11:21] MTS-AV: Tentative DS record set does not break the delegation. [11:25] MTS-AV: There is rules in RFCs that says what a validator has to accept and what they don't have to accept. It would be a good idea to just, refer to those rules. [11:34] MTS-AV: There is another implication from this, because, for example, if, the RSEP, [11:40] MTS-AV: A text in the end would. [11:43] MTS-AV: list specific algorithms, for example, that are deprecated. then that guidance would quickly be out of date over time, and would have to be updated. So it would be better to refer to the current ITF, [11:54] MTS-AV: Guidance on the topic, which does get updated and would then be included, automatically without… [12:00] MTS-AV: Things getting out of date continuously. [12:03] MTS-AV: And then second, on the right-hand side, the assessment in some ways presents positions that are internally inconsistent. For example. [12:13] MTS-AV: There is, in Section 6.1, there is… [12:16] MTS-AV: A hard requirement that DS operation… [12:19] MTS-AV: DS automation should not be suspended when a client update prohibited lock is in place, which is correct. But the other sections say that that also applies when a server update prohibited lock is in place, which is also correct in the ITF consensus, but it's not part of section. [12:36] MTS-AV: Section 6, but Section 6 is actually the relevant one here, which defines a requirement. [12:40] MTS-AV: So that, stuff needs to be aligned. And there are similar things about, recommended TTLs, for example. Section 5.3 says. [12:50] MTS-AV: that it's a good idea to have asymmetric TTLs, so to… to… to… shorten them after a DS change for a while, so that you have quicker rollback if you made a mistake, and then put them to the normal value again after a while. And then, in a different place, it says that you should always have short TTLs. [13:06] MTS-AV: And there's arguments for that, of course, as well, but there's arguments also against it. And in any case, not both positions at the same time can be the recommended position. [13:15] MTS-AV: And yeah, so there's other things like that about consistency checks. [13:19] MTS-AV: And, so we could say that doesn't really matter, but the thing is that, or the things I've mentioned, the operators that. [13:27] MTS-AV: want to go through this fast track, RCEP have to provide answers to each of these questions that are raised as hard and, disclosure requirements. [13:35] MTS-AV: And they have to say how they do these things, and when, the [13:41] MTS-AV: When ICANN Org looks into this and determines whether it's done correctly, it's difficult to predict what happens when the requirement is ambiguous. [13:48] MTS-AV: And that might lead to delays or even referrals to the. [13:52] MTS-AV: evaluation panel, which is costly and takes time. So it would be better, to have requirements that are, [14:01] MTS-AV: Clear, and internally consistent. [14:04] MTS-AV: And, that way, avoid these problems down the road. [14:09] MTS-AV: And, yeah, so one suggestion that we could help with would be, [14:15] MTS-AV: Once these corrections have been applied in the addendum that I think ICAN Org is planning to add to the assessment. [14:21] MTS-AV: that this could be [14:23] MTS-AV: given to some groups for review, and I guess the SSAC, for example, would be a proper group to do that. [14:29] MTS-AV: Hmm. [14:31] MTS-AV: Specific comments about the hard requirements? [14:35] MTS-AV: So, there is rules I mentioned before about the DS deployment checks, what does it constitute to not break a delegation? We've talked about this. And there's the other checks about multi-signer, which is the one residual concern that I mentioned, which. [14:51] MTS-AV: is actually addressed by the consistency checks that are in scope and already a hard requirement from RFC9975. So that's the hard requirement 2, HR2. At the same time, the disclosure requirements 1 and 4. [15:04] MTS-AV: require the operator to explain what they do in the case of Multisigner? [15:10] MTS-AV: And so first of all, they don't have to do anything else than in other cases. And second, they cannot even say what they do in case of multicenter because they cannot distinguish the case from a non-multicenter case. [15:19] MTS-AV: DR4, however, requires them to disclose what they do in this case specifically, so that's a non-applicable and non-implementable [15:27] MTS-AV: Disclosure requirement. [15:28] MTS-AV: Then there's HR3 and HR4, which are about locks and opt-out. So the HR3 thing is the consistency with other sections I mentioned earlier, the internal consistency of the document, and HR4, is about the registrar having the opportunity to opt out of DS automation for some or all of [15:46] MTS-AV: The domains under its management, which is a good idea, and there's… [15:51] MTS-AV: A draft underway from Gavin Brown for this. [15:54] MTS-AV: The tech server says that, the motivation for the registrar's opt-out would be the registrant's intent. [16:03] MTS-AV: That could be or could not be the case. It would often be the registrar's intent, in fact, and it could happen that the registrant has a different intent. For example, it could be that the registrant publishes a CDS record, and the registrar doesn't want that to be processed for some reason, and then Based on this opt-out, the registrant has no. [16:20] MTS-AV: No, what's the word? [16:23] MTS-AV: Anyway, so, the… [16:27] MTS-AV: Recommendation to have the opt-out available is a good idea, but the rationale for it is, is, it's good. [16:33] MTS-AV: And then, [16:35] MTS-AV: The special CDS null record that you can publish to turn off DNSSEC by removing the DS record set is recommended to be supported. And that's, of course, also correct. [16:47] MTS-AV: Can we go next slide? Sorry, I forgot to say that. [16:51] MTS-AV: I'm writing the last bullet. Sorry. [16:54] MTS-AV: And, so the HR6 requirement says. [16:58] MTS-AV: that this has to be supported for CDS, but there's also a CDNS key form, so that's missing. There's no reason to treat this differently, because the two forms are equivalent, and [17:08] MTS-AV: There is no Reference form, at least in the standards. [17:14] MTS-AV: Okay, so these are the specific comments on the hard requirements, and, next slide is, comments on… Other requirements… [17:22] MTS-AV: I mentioned the internal inconsistency of the TTL handling recommendations before. Then there is, The bootstrapping [17:34] MTS-AV: One second. [17:35] MTS-AV: Yeah. [17:37] MTS-AV: So the recommendation one of SAC 126 [17:40] MTS-AV: Clearly says that CDS and CDNS key processing. [17:43] MTS-AV: Is the right way to do DS automation, both for bootstrapping and for updates. And in many places, the assessment says that too, but in, DR6 specifically, it sort of. [17:57] MTS-AV: explains what the operator has to do in case they don't do DNS SAC bootstrapping, so that is apparently. [18:05] MTS-AV: a conceivable thing, but only in this specific sentence in the assessment. Everything else assumes it's [18:09] MTS-AV: It's just being done in the hard requirement. [18:12] MTS-AV: And so this disclosure requirement 6 seems to be a little misguided and could go away. [18:19] MTS-AV: Then, beyond the hard requirements, the disclosure requirements, and the recommendations, there is what the assessment calls cross-cutting concerns. [18:29] MTS-AV: So those don't fall under the security or stability pillar specifically, and are more, like, broad. And, so one of them is reporting, and it's also, considered a residual concern, as I mentioned earlier in the assessment. [18:44] MTS-AV: Now, these things are actually more an operational matter, and I think Section 5 also says that in the assessment. [18:51] MTS-AV: And, so the question is why that would be in scope for, the security and stability assessment if it is only an operational question. Nevertheless, it's a good idea to make recommendations about what to do, and maybe require operators to publicly disclose what they do. [19:04] MTS-AV: them And it, in any case, doesn't really affect the assessment. [19:08] MTS-AV: Outcome in the end, but still, that may be worth emphasizing. [19:14] MTS-AV: So there is no misunderstanding. [19:17] MTS-AV: Then there is, the DNS notifications, where the child operator can tell the parent, hey, can you please check my CDS records now? That is out of scope because it appeared after the SAC126, report was adopted by the board. [19:32] MTS-AV: And, it's important to make sure, though, that, the current [19:37] MTS-AV: results from the RCEP process development. [19:41] MTS-AV: Do not lead to any, phrasings that would later be incompatible. [19:46] MTS-AV: later be incompatible with it, so that there would be problems once that gets amended. [19:50] MTS-AV: And [19:52] MTS-AV: Yeah, so I think the assessment does a good job with this, but it's worth pointing out that that's important in our comment. [19:59] MTS-AV: And then there is a, conclusion, in the report that says, positive preliminary determination, is, recommended. [20:08] MTS-AV: Now, the determination… [20:11] MTS-AV: evaluates whether there is actually security or stability issues. So you could argue if they are positive, then yes, there are issues. [20:18] MTS-AV: And that's obviously not meant, but it may be more. [20:21] MTS-AV: Clear to just say. [20:25] MTS-AV: That no issues are raised, instead of saying positive. [20:28] MTS-AV: Next and semi-final slide. [20:32] MTS-AV: There's also some things in the report that are inaccurate, and they don't affect the assessment's conclusions. [20:39] MTS-AV: And there are 13 such things in total. Here are four examples. They don't need all to be fixed necessarily. It's just like a list of things we could include. [20:47] MTS-AV: Why it might be important is that section 3 in the assessment describes the CDS key mechanism, and it says that it is normative for the whole process. [20:56] MTS-AV: And many of the mistakes are actually in this Section 3. So when it's normative, it might have consequences down the line, and it might make sense to fix these things. So, for example. [21:07] MTS-AV: The second one here is that a CDS record set referencing a key that is absent from the DNS QRR set is an illegal update, and it's not an illegal update because the WDS rollover, for example, requires that. [21:19] MTS-AV: And, so these things should be technically correct. [21:23] MTS-AV: It also says that the timing for scanning gives you a lower bound on the latency when it actually gives you an upper bound. [21:30] MTS-AV: And such things. [21:32] MTS-AV: All right, next slide. [21:34] MTS-AV: So I'd like to discuss with you in the next few minutes, [21:39] MTS-AV: What do you think about this? There is a text for the draft comment, that we could return. I don't know how many people have read it, it was pretty new, but, we can also look at it next week or whatever. And, yeah, so the deadline is November 23, and the main things I'm interested in is whether the tone of the text is right. I mean, I don't have the text here, but anyway. [21:58] MTS-AV: Then whether the suggested reformulations of the requirements, where they are inaccurate, is acceptable, and which of the corrections we should be keeping. Thank you. [22:08] MTS-AV: All right, as a reminder, SSAC members in the room, please raise your hand in Zoom, because I might not see you where you are at in the room if you're just waving your hand. First up, we have a question from Ram. [22:20] MTS-AV: Thanks, Peter, for leading this discussion. I think the tone is right, to your question. I think the tone is right. I think the document is… [22:28] MTS-AV: I just sent a note to the… to the list. I think the document is… is just about right. What. [22:36] MTS-AV: As to the corrections in Section 4, I think it's detailed. [22:46] MTS-AV: And I, I do not see any reason to… [22:53] MTS-AV: To remove those from the document. [22:56] MTS-AV: Even though they're very detailed, right? [22:59] MTS-AV: I'm sorry. [23:01] MTS-AV: Well, I think we should be nitpicky. I think if you're not nitpicky, we're not doing [23:08] MTS-AV: Justice to this topic. It's got to be very specific. [23:12] MTS-AV: And I I don't think that you know I mean our the the recipient is ICANN Oregon. I don't think they're going to look at this as something hostile. It's going to be looked at as something constructive to help improve the the quality of the work product. [23:29] MTS-AV: So, I… I thought that was fine. As… as to. [23:40] MTS-AV: The DR4 reformulation. [23:44] MTS-AV: I… I missed the… the… [23:48] MTS-AV: when you were explaining it, I missed the rationale for the DR4 reformulation, so can you just walk me through that again? Because you… what you're saying is. [24:00] MTS-AV: Dr. 4 should be removed, and the exclusion options should be removed right. [24:06] MTS-AV: Is that what you're saying? [24:09] MTS-AV: Yes. [24:10] MTS-AV: So how is that reformulating? [24:13] MTS-AV: Host #1: Oh, if you're saying you want to remove it, you're not saying reformulate. Right? Okay. [24:17] MTS-AV: Yeah, that might be, [24:21] MTS-AV: Let me, let me check what the draft text actually says, give me one minute. [24:25] MTS-AV: Meanwhile, I can give you the… Yeah, because what I'm reading is the SSAC suggests removing DR4 in the exclusion options and stating that HR2 applies regardless of the number of providers. [24:37] MTS-AV: Yeah, yeah, I think that's correct. [24:43] MTS-AV: Yeah, I think reformulation here just means that we propose a change to the actual… [24:49] MTS-AV: Okay, so there's just English, then. Yeah, yeah. Okay, got it. [24:57] MTS-AV: Any other questions or comments from SSAC members in the room? [25:07] MTS-AV: Not seeing any hands? [25:16] MTS-AV: All right, Peter, any final comments or thoughts here? [25:21] MTS-AV: Thank you. [25:26] MTS-AV: Okay, thanks. So, next steps on this, then, you know, Peter, you've already sent the doc to the list. [25:32] MTS-AV: And… We set a clock then, Danielle. [25:39] MTS-AV: On this, because we've had the discussion here, those who are here in the room. [25:43] MTS-AV: and Peter has already sent the note out with the documents. So we set a clock, and then we roll it out. [25:51] MTS-AV: Yeah, I think we put the document and the recording from this work session out for at least a week review, and then maybe… not the week after ICANN, we still have 39 days on this, but maybe the first week we have meetings back, see if we need to schedule a call, or if we can just handle it on the list. Okay, sounds good. Peter, you good with that? [26:14] MTS-AV: All right, let's go to the… [26:17] MTS-AV: The next fun thing on our agenda. [26:27] MTS-AV: What, you don't think we have fun? We didn't have fun with these yet. [26:31] MTS-AV: Quizzical looks. [26:33] MTS-AV: So these are the… the survey results prioritization. Now, we discussed this at the last, SSAC monthly meeting, some of you were here, but we didn't have, you know, kind of… we had maybe half of our membership who dialed in, so we're… [26:50] MTS-AV: doing this exercise again, because you want to be really sure that the work that we're looking to go and do is the work that you all agree. [27:01] MTS-AV: We should be doing, so it would… [27:06] MTS-AV: run that process another time. So, Danielle, let me hand it to you to walk us through… [27:12] MTS-AV: The pieces of the work that we've done [27:17] MTS-AV: Just as a, reminder of [27:20] MTS-AV: You know, the survey and what we've done, then I'll run through the slides. [27:27] MTS-AV: Sorry, [27:29] MTS-AV: Oh, so we… you know, we did… we had the survey during the Panama workshop. There were several technical difficulties that happened during that, but one of the things that came out of it, on the way home from the workshop. [27:41] MTS-AV: was, basically the East Coast shuttle back to Newark had a discussion at the Panama City Airport, and, one of the things that we definitely heard in the wrap-up session was [27:53] MTS-AV: We, we can't… [27:54] MTS-AV: you can't rate 15 topics just on topic, just topic label alone. So Tim April put together a starter charter document with. [28:05] MTS-AV: very rough draft charters for the 15 proposed work topics. These are nowhere near final, but it is something a little bit more concrete for y'all to rank. Then we reopened the same survey up for a week, and [28:19] MTS-AV: did a little bit more analysis, absolute certainty that the, all 15 topics were included in this ranking, and then, Ram presented these results at the membership meeting on Tuesday. We had about, I think, 17 members on the call, so we are going through that again, and we've got some sort of [28:38] MTS-AV: Polling questions to see how people feel about the prioritization results, and the leadership team put together a proposal on how to organize which work parties to do next. [28:47] MTS-AV: Nothing is set in stone, this is just a proposal, and we're looking for your honest input. SSAC members in the room, I've put Mentimeter joining instructions on the SSAC mailing list and in the Slack. I will not be putting those on the screen so that observers cannot join and. [29:05] MTS-AV: participate in the live polling. So, Ram, over to you. [29:10] MTS-AV: Thank you, for that background, Danielle. So, let's go to the next slide. [29:19] MTS-AV: So, for those of you who were there in the last meeting, you, you know, you will find that this is familiar. Off the various topics, you know, what we were looking for was [29:32] MTS-AV: how much interest there is to be a chair, co-chair, a contributor, and/or an observer or reviewer. So you can see the bar chart here. And [29:45] MTS-AV: the the red line is how you rated the priority of these topics relative to each other. Right? So that's what this this shows on the number of volunteers. Basically, what we see is that [30:05] MTS-AV: for all of the top topics, we have no risk in terms of not having co-chairs or not having enough volunteers to go do the work. Enough people have said. [30:16] MTS-AV: They're interested and they want to do the work and are interested in co-chairing the work parties, right? So that's a positive sign. [30:26] MTS-AV: Next slide. [30:29] MTS-AV: On this slide, this is by topic, you know, how did… how did you all rank? [30:35] MTS-AV: the various topics. And, you know, we asked you to rank them 1 to 5, as high as 6 to 10 as middle, and 11 to 15 as low. [30:46] MTS-AV: And you can see where. [30:48] MTS-AV: Where things got scored. [30:50] MTS-AV: Now. [30:52] MTS-AV: At the last monthly meeting that we had, actually, I'll bring that up towards the end of this presentation deck in terms of some feedback that was received. [31:03] MTS-AV: But this gives you a sense of the various topics, abuse reporting standards, registry registrar compliance and takedowns, PSL readiness, flattening namespace, resolver consolidation, authoritative DNS resilience, kind of top 6 topics. [31:19] MTS-AV: Right? And if in the past, you know, what we've done, what we had done was to say, okay, we've [31:25] MTS-AV: We've ranked them, let's just go in order, but we're thinking about it in a different way now. [31:31] MTS-AV: So if you look at the work tracks right now, what are the things that SSAC is working on, working, you know, on AI impacts on DNS SSR and abuse and DNS transparency in a track on the next slide, in a track that. [31:50] MTS-AV: you know, we could label as registration, security, and abuse, right? And there are five topics that are proposed that are in the queue. [31:59] MTS-AV: On namespace integrity, we have RIDE that is… that is, currently underway, and there are two new topics that are being proposed. [32:09] MTS-AV: On DNS operations and resilience, we have the DNSSEC Operational Considerations Work Party that'll wrap its work up in… within the next month or so. There are 7 new topics that have been brought up, and then there's a standalone, which is on RIR. [32:24] MTS-AV: System integrity, right? So the way we were. [32:31] MTS-AV: You know, we just organized it this way as a potentially useful way to look at the work requests that are coming in for new work. [32:40] MTS-AV: And on the next slide. [32:43] MTS-AV: If we queued it, by these tracks. [32:47] MTS-AV: Right? If you queued the various topics and the prioritization that you provided, you queue them by registration, security and abuse, namespace integrity and DNS operations and resilience. [33:01] MTS-AV: Then, you know, you would find that [33:03] MTS-AV: what these results show, right? On column one, you have the top two, abuse reporting standards, registry registrar compliance and takedowns, you know, are on the left-hand side. [33:16] MTS-AV: In the middle is PSL readiness is the top rank. And on DNS operations and resilience resolver consolidation. [33:24] MTS-AV: is has the top score, but really top score almost equivalent to the second one authoritative resilience right there. They're neck and neck. [33:34] MTS-AV: with each other. So if you look at, if you are okay with looking at topics done in this, you know, categorization model. [33:45] MTS-AV: then we could make some decisions right now. If you look at the the other thing that we looked at was [33:55] MTS-AV: Of the topics that have been ranked high, what is the amount of overlap? [34:01] MTS-AV: That there is, and do we have enough [34:04] MTS-AV: engagement, right? So, on registry registrar compliance and takedowns, that particular topic. [34:14] MTS-AV: Once abuse reporting [34:17] MTS-AV: you know, is is begun as a work party potentially. And you have Psl. Psl. As a work party. [34:25] MTS-AV: 100% of the volunteers will be allocated or would have volunteered for those two work parties, and this would be a third one that would be on top of [34:37] MTS-AV: of them in terms of work requirement, right? So, that's… that's something that, you know, kind of stands out. [34:46] MTS-AV: So next slide is a question for for you in the SSAC [34:53] MTS-AV: So we're thinking we should plan new work by grouping related topics, and then inside of that group, we then, you know, pick the first one and then go from there. [35:04] MTS-AV: What do you think about it? Please look at Mentimeter. Barry, you have your hand raised. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that [35:13] MTS-AV: The way these are grouped, People who, say on the… can you go back a slide. [35:21] MTS-AV: See, the people who are, in the, say, abuse reporting group. [35:27] MTS-AV: If we had two abuse reporting related work parties going at the same time, it would be mostly the same people in both of them. So this… [35:36] MTS-AV: Grouping gets you spread out a little bit and avoids you having to be in two or three of the work parties at the same time. [35:43] MTS-AV: And it… the other way around, it engages more people at the same time who would, who would want to be in different, groupings. So that's… that was our thinking there. Some people are just interested in all the work parties, and I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do about that. You're just gonna have to be spread thin. [36:03] MTS-AV: Robert? Yeah, so I think it's a great idea to [36:08] MTS-AV: have groups that bring like-minded people on a topic together. I think the only thing that I would suggest is [36:16] MTS-AV: to have work come out sooner. Our work parties can take a long time to produce a report, and so maybe figuring out, like, a short, like, maybe, you know, how to segment that a little bit, and just, like, we have a charter. [36:30] MTS-AV: push that out. We have updates, so it's just more, you know, not putting like-minded people together and then frustrating them because it takes a long time, and so figuring out small little chunks, like. [36:40] MTS-AV: maybe as a strategy, we want more out of the work party, but in smaller segments, so it's easier to get out, so the community also sees there's this work party working on these issues, and they're putting out things, and it could be progress updates. We have a whole discussion about that this afternoon, so… [36:57] MTS-AV: So. [36:58] MTS-AV: Let's crank that and see what we can do about how the work parties can go more quickly. But one thing that I think this will help with is by making it clear that we have a queue of topics. [37:09] MTS-AV: You know what's coming up, and it may give people an incentive to, let's get this one wrapped up so we can move on to the next one, rather than just wondering what we're going to do next. [37:20] MTS-AV: So, to be clear, marking don't support means that we just do them according to the ranking that people rank them as, correct? [37:28] MTS-AV: Because the question's kind of ambiguous what that actually means. I hear what you're saying. Because, like, if we think we should just do them according to how they were ranked by the members, what do we choose from the… [37:40] MTS-AV: Right. I mean, we're saying it might be better to… [37:44] MTS-AV: do it by the topic tracks. If you say don't support, then then the way I would read it as [37:51] MTS-AV: We've given you the priorities, just work through the priorities, don't worry about these other considerations. That's the way I would read it. [38:04] MTS-AV: Alright, we've got 5 out of 16 people have joined the Mentimeter who have responded so far. [38:51] MTS-AV: All right, let's call it. [39:04] MTS-AV: Okay, so if there are… if there are folks who… [39:09] MTS-AV: Want to speak about supported changes and need more information and don't support? This is an opportunity to raise your hand and. [39:18] MTS-AV: Present your perspective. [39:34] MTS-AV: Don't be shy, guys. You voted. We've got a hand from Matias. [39:40] MTS-AV: Hey, so, actually, I mean, I think it's an opportunity just to give it a try. I see it very pragmatic, to be honest. [39:49] MTS-AV: Everything which helps us to, [39:52] MTS-AV: Getting quick and efficient, I think, makes sense, and if… [39:56] MTS-AV: I think we should… we should try it, at least. We have never tried it to group it into topics and then move forward. I think it's a… [40:03] MTS-AV: And it's just a new approach to try. That's my thought. [40:08] MTS-AV: Thanks. [40:09] MTS-AV: Anyone else? [40:21] MTS-AV: Okay. [40:22] MTS-AV: So. [40:25] MTS-AV: At least of those who have participated in the poll, the results are quite overwhelmingly in favor of moving forward in this path. [40:36] MTS-AV: So And it was, if I recall right, in the membership committee meeting as well, I think the… [40:43] MTS-AV: The consensus in that grouping was also. [40:47] MTS-AV: More than just a majority. [40:49] MTS-AV: Said we should support as presented, so… I'm sorry. [40:54] MTS-AV: The monthly. [40:56] MTS-AV: Oh, sorry, not monthly. Sorry, monthly meeting. [41:00] MTS-AV: So… I think this is the plan. This is what we are gonna move forward with. [41:09] MTS-AV: All right. [41:11] MTS-AV: Let's go to the next slide. [41:17] MTS-AV: Also, a question for you. [41:20] MTS-AV: Are these proposed tracks? Do they group… did they group the topics correctly? [41:25] MTS-AV: Right? So that's a question. And Danielle, can you just bring the The, that topic slide up. [41:32] MTS-AV: For people to keep in… In front of their minds. [41:38] MTS-AV: There you go. [41:40] MTS-AV: One, one further. [41:43] MTS-AV: There you go. [42:00] MTS-AV: Is this a time for comments? [42:03] MTS-AV: So the standalone category. [42:06] MTS-AV: I suppose it could be called. [42:08] MTS-AV: Could be empty, and then the one that's in there could be called numbers or something. [42:12] MTS-AV: Right? Because that's one of our Riemann parts. [43:12] MTS-AV: 8 out of 18 have voted, so please… Come in to vote. [43:55] MTS-AV: Okay, we're back to 12 out of 18, so I guess the other 6 of you are just gonna have to go along with what the other 12 were saying. [44:05] MTS-AV: What do the results show, Danielle? [44:11] MTS-AV: Okay. [44:13] MTS-AV: And, you know, Peter had a suggestion that the standalone topic be renamed to numbering, perhaps, and… and… [44:21] MTS-AV: You know, I agreed also that maybe the IPv6 topic be slotted under [44:32] MTS-AV: Anybody have comments on on this? [44:37] MTS-AV: Any other comments that you'd like to see. [44:43] MTS-AV: Okay, [44:46] MTS-AV: Next question for you is, again, we're trying to figure out, are we doing the right thing about with going with groupings? [44:54] MTS-AV: And so this is, Open question for you. [44:59] MTS-AV: What would you change about? [45:02] MTS-AV: The method that we're proposing. [46:27] MTS-AV: That show what people are writing. [46:43] MTS-AV: On the third comment, I hear what you're saying, and I think that's exactly what we'll get to when we get to the chartering exercise. If we do go down the path and we get that work party going, the first thing to do is to get the chartering, and the chartering may end up deciding, okay, narrow the scope, shrink it down, or divide it. [47:03] MTS-AV: than one, etc. [47:05] MTS-AV: I believe the the AI Dns abuse and AI went down a similar path. They had a much larger charter, and then they ended up shrinking it down. [47:18] MTS-AV: Okay, so… Let's give it a try. [47:22] MTS-AV: Let's, carry on to the next… Question? [47:28] MTS-AV: So… so, since you are generally agreeing we should… Do it by track. [47:36] MTS-AV: In the DNS operations and resilience track. [47:41] MTS-AV: you know, which one… Now, the DNSAC agility was the one that Joe Abley had presented on, but I think we have some updates from the. [47:53] MTS-AV: Last meeting, right, Danielle? [47:55] MTS-AV: So this has been marked as time-sensitive. There is a typo, a few slides back on the prioritization by topic slide. There is no KSK roller… rollover planned in 2027. I think the times… [48:10] MTS-AV: I, I… [48:12] MTS-AV: message Joe after the monthly meeting. There is still a time-sensitive aspect as it applies to, I think the post-quantum cryptography discussion that SSAC has been having on the mailing list, and that we have a mailing… we have a work session [48:25] MTS-AV: tomorrow morning, Block 1. So there's still a time-sensitive aspect to that, but it is not… [48:32] MTS-AV: before a rollover that is not scheduled to happen. That was a typo in the starter charter. You've got hands, I can't see the order. [48:42] MTS-AV: Warren. [48:48] MTS-AV: I just want to note that here DNS PsychAgility is not about any protocol. [48:53] MTS-AV: stuff, it's not about ITF drafts and anything. [48:56] MTS-AV: The thing that Joe talked about was the possibility for people to put in [49:02] MTS-AV: DS records that reference algorithm numbers that. [49:06] MTS-AV: are not common so far, and that are usually not accepted at registries or registrars. [49:11] MTS-AV: And if we, want to move to new algorithms, PQC stuff and all of that, we need to ensure that, [49:19] MTS-AV: the channel [49:21] MTS-AV: Well, not the channel, that stuff is accepted. And I think this would be a really, really small report. It would probably be pretty quick to do it. [49:29] MTS-AV: Maybe consider that when doing the ordering. [49:36] MTS-AV: Yeah, I don't really know if we really do short reports. But that's sort of confusing to me is… [49:44] MTS-AV: It feels like we went through a whole bunch of work racking and stanking things at the previous workshop. And, you know, we came up with some fairly clear, we want to do this and this and this, and it sort of feels like, why did we do that work if we're now shifting things around and not doing them in the same order, and, like, prioritizing others? Like, why'd we bother with that? [50:06] MTS-AV: If we, if we took the top 3 as as a as a work. [50:13] MTS-AV: Warren? [50:14] MTS-AV: The… The concern was that, pretty much. [50:18] MTS-AV: Those 13 people were gonna be spread across all 3 of those, because we had 100% [50:24] MTS-AV: commitment on that. And all the rest of our… our membership was… had not said they were going to be participating in those things, right? So… but that… that was the thinking that we can… we can potentially spread [50:39] MTS-AV: And increase the engagement, but also. [50:44] MTS-AV: increase the… the range of topics that we're looking at. Now, on the DNS operations and resilience question, I think for me, Danielle, and the other members. [50:56] MTS-AV: For me, the… [50:58] MTS-AV: the question was, opting between resolver consolidation, which got a 272 vote, and authoritative resilience, which is a 269 vote. To me, those are [51:10] MTS-AV: fairly similar, and if I had to prioritize, I would have wanted to prioritize between those two. [51:17] MTS-AV: rather than resolver consolidation at 272 and DNSSEC agility at 247. Agility at 247, I think earlier on, only rose because there was a thinking it may be… there may be a time-sensitive piece, but there is not. So, to me. [51:35] MTS-AV: on DNS operations and resilience, it… for me, the choice would be between consolidation and authoritative resilience, because [51:43] MTS-AV: Our members voted them. [51:46] MTS-AV: Kind of higher than everything else in that area. [51:49] MTS-AV: Category. [51:51] MTS-AV: Do you want me to clear the results and replace that second option, then? That's what I… [51:56] MTS-AV: Okay, give me… give me a few seconds. [51:58] MTS-AV: Warren, you had your hand raised. [52:07] MTS-AV: Sorry, or at least you were… it felt to me like you were going to respond to what I was saying as to why we're… [52:14] MTS-AV: approaching this [52:16] MTS-AV: It's not that the prioritization is a wasted exercise, right? Because we're still using those results, but the thinking is, how do we manage the workload [52:27] MTS-AV: to get work product out. So that was the thinking behind putting it into categories. [52:35] MTS-AV: And as it turns out. [52:37] MTS-AV: 369, 352, 346 were the top 3 scores, and [52:43] MTS-AV: If we go down this path, two of those will get prioritized. The one that will not get prioritized to get worked on in parallel would be the registry registrar compliance and takedowns, because there was one that had a higher ranking to it. [52:59] MTS-AV: I mean, I was actually asking within this category. [53:02] MTS-AV: We're also still reshuffling them. Yeah, and you saw where I came in on that. I think inside the category, it should stay… [53:10] MTS-AV: you know, we should do first choice between the top two, if they are close. If they're not close, then we already know which is the leader in that category. [53:21] MTS-AV: Does that answer your question? [53:24] MTS-AV: I mean, I personally prefer the second one down. [53:28] MTS-AV: The one that didn't get the highest score, but it still feels to me that If the committee had [53:35] MTS-AV: Rank them, then we would… [53:37] MTS-AV: do them in the order that the committee had ranked them. I mean, I personally prefer the second, the less high topic, but I'm fine with whatever. You mean the registry, registrar compliance and takedowns topic? No, on the… You mean authoritative resilience? So, we had resolver consolidation and authoritative… [53:54] MTS-AV: Whichever with the… Right, right, right. So that's what we're going to re-poll on now. We're going to re-poll on those two, the top two things in DNS operations resilience, resolver consolidation versus authoritative resilience. Yes. [54:11] MTS-AV: Does that address your concern from before? [54:16] MTS-AV: Not really, I don't understand why we are… Voting a second time. [54:21] MTS-AV: I happen to actually prefer the one that didn't get the highest score. Oh, I just suggested it because 272 versus 269 felt like they were in the same bucket, but [54:32] MTS-AV: I'm happy with just saying, you know, pick resolver consolidation and move on. If you guys think that's what we should do, don't have to vote on this. [54:44] MTS-AV: I don't know what everybody else… wants to do. [54:47] MTS-AV: It just feels… [54:49] MTS-AV: I hear what you're saying, you know, why are we voting again on something we've already voted on? I understand. [54:56] MTS-AV: I only brought up Warren because they felt like they were. [55:00] MTS-AV: You know, kind of within a margin of error. [55:04] MTS-AV: Sorry. [55:05] MTS-AV: Tara? Yeah, I was gonna say, it's true that they voted, but sometimes when you get down to two choices, what you decide between the two can change depending on when you have a whole suite. So it can sometimes sway you one way or the other. [55:26] MTS-AV: What do you guys want to do? Do you want to vote on… Yeah, we might as well vote on it, we're already voting on it. Okay. [56:28] MTS-AV: All right, let's take a look at what people are saying. [56:50] MTS-AV: But by a slight… Now we have a dilemma. We could say that no preference means we keep the original vote. [56:58] MTS-AV: Which means we have six to five. No, we couldn't because they, the people who said no preference had a choice to vote. So we can't presume that they meant it. I was mostly being silly. No, no, no, I hear you, but I'm trying to get us to, what are we doing next? [57:18] MTS-AV: So I think by a slight margin, authoritative DNS resilience. [57:24] MTS-AV: Warren's favorite topic tips the other one at the post. [57:29] MTS-AV: It's the hat. [57:31] MTS-AV: It's a hat. Okay. [57:33] MTS-AV: All right. I think we have that resolved. [57:37] MTS-AV: That's good. [57:42] MTS-AV: And this is… this is, again, just… just to report back to you. We heard from you at the workshop. [57:49] MTS-AV: We didn't give you enough time to digest what these proposals were. There were a lot of them. [57:56] MTS-AV: And you didn't also, you know, get to see some kind of, [58:01] MTS-AV: You know, what would a draft charter look like, or what would… [58:05] MTS-AV: What would that work actually try to accomplish? [58:08] MTS-AV: So… What we're proposing to do is… [58:14] MTS-AV: is this for next year, right? When we do our prioritization. [58:18] MTS-AV: Almost 3 months prior to the workshop, we'll… we'll have a close for new proposals. We'll, you know, we'll have a call before that. We'll close the queue there. [58:29] MTS-AV: And then about… About 2 months prior to the workshop, charters are due. [58:35] MTS-AV: And then we'll… [58:37] MTS-AV: Open a survey to the membership 5 weeks prior, about a month prior to the workshop, and we'll give you 2 weeks to vote on it. [58:45] MTS-AV: And… and then a week prior, and it might be even earlier if we have everything that we need, we'll share the results with you, share the draft charters with you, so that when you come to the workshop next year. [58:59] MTS-AV: The discussion is not about the mechanics of voting, etc. It's then about, you know, are these the topics that we want to work on? [59:08] MTS-AV: So, that's kind of the plan. If you have other ideas, please bring them to us. We're learning in real time along with you, you know, and we're trying these things out to try and, you know, get our process to be efficient. And also keep in mind, as happens [59:27] MTS-AV: Hammer, Excuse me, has happens every year. [59:29] MTS-AV: Something time critical, something urgent will pop up. [59:34] MTS-AV: And that'll end up occupying a bunch of time, which means that, you know, staff and volunteer time gets redirected to those things. [59:43] MTS-AV: So expect that. That's not a if it happens, it always happens. So that will be a reality for us. The other unknown that we have that is all of this is work generated. [59:57] MTS-AV: by SSAC members' proposals, but the board has the ability [60:03] MTS-AV: to charter the SSAC to do specific work. [60:06] MTS-AV: And when they do that, they usually not only provide that as an instruction, but they also have timelines associated with that, so that often ends up taking priority over other topics that we're working on. So those are the two caveats to it. Robert? [60:25] MTS-AV: Yeah, I just want to add is, because our workshop takes place mid-September-ish. [60:30] MTS-AV: A lot of people sometimes take August off. And so I think it's really important for leadership and for staff to remind members of the material package that's going to be available. [60:41] MTS-AV: And that… This is the expected kind of change, that people do have to be well briefed. [60:48] MTS-AV: and coming, and knowing how they're going to contribute. So it's a bit of a change, and so just to make sure, kind of, people know that, especially if they've been away for a while, to refresh them, I think would be particularly helpful. The other thing, too, and I know it's been mentioned before, the use of these interactive polling tools. [61:04] MTS-AV: I just really like to commend staff, in terms, like that. I think it really helps get a sense, but also the visualization tools are a lot better. So maybe that, as the materials get prepped. Having some of that as well, too, could be particularly helpful. And then having any feedback on. [61:21] MTS-AV: You know, if Oren or others know of other tools that could be helpful to just let people know. Thanks. [61:51] MTS-AV: Okay, so this is… this is our proposal, right? For what we should do next year. [61:56] MTS-AV: So, here's another question. Should every proposal have a draft charter before the workshop? [62:03] MTS-AV: for decision at the workshop. This is new. We… in the past, it used to be that members would give a lightning talk, or members would just propose it right at the workshop. [62:16] MTS-AV: Changing that process, making it more structured. [62:19] MTS-AV: You guys agree with this. [62:21] MTS-AV: Do you think it should be modified in some way? [62:25] MTS-AV: Or do you think this is just another random idea? [62:39] MTS-AV: Yeah, that's not the… that's not what we want you to look at. We want you to look at [62:47] MTS-AV: But somebody managed to ballot support. [62:52] Geoff Huston: You had to be quick. [62:53] MTS-AV: We could also just do a show of hands if we want. [63:19] MTS-AV: Geoff, you had your hand raised, but then you lowered it. Did you still? [63:24] Geoff Huston: I was pointing out the difference between what was being presented and what was on Menti, and you'd already picked that up. Thank you. [63:32] MTS-AV: Thank you. [63:51] MTS-AV: Only one vote on this so far? [63:56] MTS-AV: There's 11. I had the screen sharing paused, so it wasn't live updating. We've got 11 out of 19 so far. Okay. [64:03] MTS-AV: Hadia [64:05] MTS-AV: Yes, I just raised my hand in order to, like, make sure that the decision at the workshop, would be after, those who drafted the charter have an opportunity to present it, and we have an opportunity to discuss it. So then, after, maybe, on the last day, we take the decision. So maybe the decision is not on the spot, like when the [64:29] MTS-AV: When, the owners of the, of of the chartering group, presented, but maybe they can present, we discuss and then. [64:43] MTS-AV: maybe the following day or on the last day, we take the decision, so that the decision is not on the spot after the discussion, so that we, have an opportunity to, like, review what we heard and, go through the charters again, and then, and then the decision happens. [65:03] MTS-AV: Thank you. [65:04] MTS-AV: Thanks. That's a very constructive suggestion. I think that's exactly how we should do it, Barry. [65:09] MTS-AV: Well, but the point here is that we get the charters significantly in advance. The charters are not going to be detailed final charters, but they're gonna… this is what we want to work on, this is what the scope is. [65:21] MTS-AV: And we can ask questions on the mailing list before. We should not be discussing the charters in detail. [65:27] MTS-AV: at the workshop. [65:29] MTS-AV: The workshop is to discuss the prioritization and [65:33] MTS-AV: How we want to organize the work. [65:36] MTS-AV: I don't think it would be good to spend our time at the workshop going into great detail on the charter discussion. [65:45] MTS-AV: I see Peter, then Hadia, then Matthias. [65:50] MTS-AV: How many? [65:52] MTS-AV: Potential work parties did our recent ranking include? Maybe 15? [65:58] MTS-AV: Do we think that it would have been likely that 15 charters Would have been drafted. [66:04] MTS-AV: And… if not… Would it have been good to not rank all of them? [66:11] MTS-AV: In other words, maybe if charters were required, there would be four charters, and then we'd be ranking four things only. [66:19] MTS-AV: I don't know. [66:24] MTS-AV: Yeah. [66:25] MTS-AV: Yeah, Peter, I guess… Could go that way, but… [66:30] MTS-AV: The critique this time was that people didn't feel they were sufficiently informed about what they were voting on because they didn't see a charter for every one of those things, right? So that was the critique that we received. Yeah, this time it was more like, oh, I have an idea, I have an idea, let's just write them down. [66:47] MTS-AV: And now we're asking people to do some more work in scoping what they want to talk about. [66:53] MTS-AV: So, Hadia's next, and then Matthias. [66:58] MTS-AV: So, I just raised my hand because what Barry said makes perfect sense. If we will have, before the workshop, an opportunity to understand what the charters are about, and also, if we have questions, we can raise them over the mailing list, then that serves the purpose, right? And then, so that works as well. [67:18] MTS-AV: And maybe, yes, we do not have a time during the workshop to discuss, like, 15 charters. [67:25] MTS-AV: Thank you, Matthias. [67:27] MTS-AV: Yeah, so I fully agree with Barry. I think there should be a rough charter, but, we should not discuss the details at the workshop. [67:36] MTS-AV: And secondly, this is also what we did already now, at least, like, for the AI work party, and I think also for the other ones. They already presented the charter with the work party. [67:50] MTS-AV: Warren? So, at the last workshop, my set had, I think, 20 different things. [67:59] MTS-AV: I don't think writing 20 charters would be a reasonable thing to expect. [68:04] MTS-AV: So, I mean, I guess that that means we just go back to… [68:08] MTS-AV: not having a whole list of ones to choose from. [68:12] MTS-AV: or I [68:14] MTS-AV: I… I interpret it to mean, then, that… put some of it on you to, if you have 20 ideas, what are the top 5? [68:21] MTS-AV: Okay, so… Really willing to do the work on. So that's basically, don't present a whole bunch. [68:27] MTS-AV: Just do 5, because, like. [68:30] MTS-AV: Sorry, two-finger. I think, there's a chicken-egg problem, because some people have many ideas, maybe Warren. [68:37] MTS-AV: They might be wondering, which topic would it be worth for me to write a charter on? [68:41] MTS-AV: That's what the rankings were. [68:44] MTS-AV: I also wouldn't mind you throwing the other ideas out there for other people to take up and maybe write charts. [68:52] MTS-AV: Yeah. [68:54] MTS-AV: Billy? [68:56] MTS-AV: I think not every topic can exist as a charter on the stage of discussion, so probably some topics could be, like, a set of questions [69:06] MTS-AV: but predetermined questions by the person who suggests the topic which could be discussed during the workshop. So probably we should not stick to draft form only. [69:21] MTS-AV: Matthias. Yeah, or we could even say, I mean, there might be some ideas where you say, yeah, I want to present something without having a fixed charter, and then… Or let's say we have a slot where we say we discuss the work party, with charter, and there should be still, I think, a possibility for people to raise an idea. [69:40] MTS-AV: without having any rough charter, because there might be some topic coming up, but maybe it's not, like, the main focus of the full session, so that you still can say, like, for example, as Warren mentioned. [69:52] MTS-AV: Yeah, I have maybe 20 ideas, I have no charter, but I want to discuss these ideas, or I have maybe two ideas, or I have just one idea. [70:01] MTS-AV: But I would say the focus of the session should be to discuss the work parties with the Charter, but there should be, in my opinion, still an option for people to present something where they do not have a charter ready. [70:13] MTS-AV: This could be also something where we have… Okay, so I… [70:16] MTS-AV: I think operationally that's going to be difficult, right? Then maybe what we should do. [70:22] MTS-AV: Let me finish, let me read for Barry to finish. [70:26] MTS-AV: I'll wait for you to finish, Barry. [70:29] MTS-AV: Operationally, Matthias, I think that Or, Billy, I think that… [70:34] MTS-AV: Mixing and matching, having, you know. [70:37] MTS-AV: Proposed charters with things that are. [70:40] MTS-AV: That have questions that then result in. [70:43] MTS-AV: Possibly a lot of interest, but not an equivalent charter to it, might put those proposals not on even ground. [70:51] MTS-AV: So maybe what we have to do is. [70:55] MTS-AV: Maybe we need to have a… a couple of sessions. [71:00] MTS-AV: In our monthly meetings, prior to the workshop. [71:04] MTS-AV: So… so we have people who have questions and who want to get their ideas out. You know, we said 7 weeks for the deadline, right? So we could do it 9 weeks or 10 weeks prior to that. We could have, in one of our monthly meetings, propose topics, bring questions. Then, if you see enough interest. [71:24] MTS-AV: That'll then give you the idea to figure out what should be in a charter. Because I would like for us, when we get to the prioritization exercise, I would like for all the ideas to be on reasonably equal footing. [71:40] MTS-AV: Matthias? Yeah, I think that's a very good idea, because we could just, as you said, whatever, choose a time frame, 7 weeks or 8 weeks before the… the… our, like, workshop, and then people have enough time to think about it. [71:54] MTS-AV: they are heard, because they can use also the monthly meeting, and they can propose, and people can then give their ideas on it. I think that's a good idea. [72:02] MTS-AV: My opinion. [72:03] MTS-AV: Warren, and then Robert. [72:06] MTS-AV: Old hand, Robert. [72:08] MTS-AV: Yeah, I think, to your earlier comment about the board and issues that may come up, I think we always need to always think about [72:17] MTS-AV: an emerging issues slot, so we don't miss that, so even though we have these times and deadlines, that we have an opportunity to just get… there's no emerging topics, okay, great, but if there is, the moment we know about it, or a member has a topic that wants to propose, so let's make sure we have that [72:34] MTS-AV: ability to kind of slot that in. And the other thing, too, [72:38] MTS-AV: Jeff is meeting on chat, and I'm supporting him, it's just that also the lightning talks that we have, either in person or on the calls, are also opportunities for members to [72:50] MTS-AV: Talk about, [72:52] MTS-AV: a topic that could be of interest to us. Yeah, so I guess my perspective is, you know, we have members give lightning talks, but not all our members give lightning talks with an intent to convert that into a work party, so this is kind of… [73:07] MTS-AV: doing a little bit more of a funneling exercise that says, if you have an interesting idea that you think… that you believe should, you know, is worthy of work, and a SSAC report, then [73:20] MTS-AV: Do the lightning talk, pose your questions, you know. [73:23] MTS-AV: Gather that, and then… We'll provide that 7-week deadline for you to go Produce a charter. Barry? [73:32] MTS-AV: Or the other way around can happen. You give a lightning talk that you don't think is going to lead to work, and 5 people come up to you and say, we should start a work party on it. Right. You work on it. Right. [73:44] MTS-AV: Okay, any other comments on this topic? [73:54] MTS-AV: What about our members who've been quiet so far? Do you have anything you want to add? [74:01] MTS-AV: No. Okay. [74:03] MTS-AV: All right. So I think we have kind of a friendly mod to the idea here, Danielle, which is, and what it also means is that in our work process, we should announce [74:19] MTS-AV: At the start of the year. [74:22] MTS-AV: Which monthly… and maybe we say we allocate slots in two monthly meetings. [74:28] MTS-AV: For members to propose. [74:30] MTS-AV: you know, topic for the SSAC to work on, right? So they have enough advance notice, they know it's going to be in the May monthly meeting, in the June monthly meeting, they ask for a slot, and then, you know, they give a lightning talk, or they make a proposal in there. [74:48] MTS-AV: Which then means that they'll still have some time, if there is enough interest, there'll be time to go develop a charter. Just working backwards. Oren? [74:57] MTS-AV: So don't we already have a whole list of work parties that we are considering? [75:03] MTS-AV: And at the rate we get through work parties, it's going to be quite a few years before we've gotten through them. [75:10] MTS-AV: So… But that assumes that our members won't have ideas for new work parties, and the… if you look at last year's list to this year's list, Warren. [75:19] MTS-AV: a whole bunch of new ideas came, and things that we prioritized high last year didn't make it this year. Oh, I think we didn't. [75:26] MTS-AV: suggest things that we've suggested last year, because we thought that they were in the queue, right? Like, we didn't… [75:32] MTS-AV: We didn't represent the things because, like, we'd assumed that they'd been presented. So it feels like we prioritize things. [75:40] MTS-AV: Then, at the end of the year, we prioritize different things, and then we're like, oh, we're going to ignore those, and people can suggest new things. Like, when do we get through the things that we already suggested? [75:50] MTS-AV: I think maybe just follow up to Warren's is that The list that we have. [75:56] MTS-AV: not just be, like, year-to-year, just we keep that so people can see what the topics were proposed from the year before, and it could be that maybe there was a topic that was proposed that everyone goes, oh my god, we should be doing that now, right? And so, let's not forget the institutional history in a way. [76:13] MTS-AV: So… [76:13] MTS-AV: you know, maybe just remind people, or just have a document, just like, hey, this is the running list that we have of topics. We can carry over topics from the prior year. [76:23] MTS-AV: But I don't think we should carry over the prioritization from the prior year. I think we do need to do the prioritization exercise each year, because there is a… there's an increased list of topics that come up. But I agree that we should carry over the topics that were [76:42] MTS-AV: on the list in the prior year, unless the members who propose those topics, you know, want to deprioritize. Okay, I mean, I had assumed that the ones we prioritized last time were [76:53] MTS-AV: Still in the queue, and so if we're… [76:57] MTS-AV: It sounds like you said two different things. First, you said we should keep those, but then you also said we're going to prioritize just this set. Well, if you look at what we've done this year, that's, you know. [77:08] MTS-AV: We're learning, right? I mean, this year. [77:11] MTS-AV: We only prioritized items that were brought up in front of the… [77:16] MTS-AV: People didn't bring them up because they'd assumed that they were still. [77:20] MTS-AV: on the list. [77:23] MTS-AV: Like, I didn't represent the things that we had presented last time that were- You didn't represent, Warren, but we also didn't bring any or many of the prioritization choices from the prior year into this year's queue. That's my point. That's my point is- We didn't do that this year. [77:41] MTS-AV: No, it's not just going forward. We had to make a call on, do you… do you believe that we need to bring that list forward? [77:49] MTS-AV: and then redo the survey. [77:52] MTS-AV: I'm supporting that, just to bring the list forward, and then we just reprioritize it, but at least we have that list. [77:59] MTS-AV: Available to look at. [78:02] MTS-AV: Geoff? [78:03] MTS-AV: Yeah, I'm gonna reflect the same as Robert just said, but I think the… the simple reality we have to keep in mind here is this is not a static environment we work within, that we live within, that the internet's in. [78:14] MTS-AV: And topics presented last year may not have the same relevance this year. I think the topic list should be brought forward, but any prioritization of 18, 12 months ago, I think the relevance of that is not worth [78:25] MTS-AV: blending into new prioritizations. Topics are still… Fair. Topics. That's fair. And the… [78:31] MTS-AV: If we take that as our process, then what we missed in this year's prioritization [78:38] MTS-AV: Is consideration of the topics. [78:41] MTS-AV: That were in the queue last year. [78:44] MTS-AV: Right? Georgia. [78:47] MTS-AV: As a relatively newer member, I think that there is a lot of value in seeing what's been proposed over the last, like, at least 3 years. I think there's a real value in that, because then you can see the overall, kind of, look at it, so yeah. [79:04] MTS-AV: Okay, but that… [79:10] MTS-AV: I mean, we have. We have 2 ways we could go about this now. [79:15] MTS-AV: One is we say that. [79:17] MTS-AV: We're gonna… Applied… applied this learning into the next year, or we could say, We're gonna start over. [79:26] MTS-AV: We're gonna bring… [79:28] MTS-AV: We're gonna bring all the topics that were there in the last year, we'll bring that forward, and… [79:34] MTS-AV: you know, we'll… we'll see if… if Tim can… [79:39] MTS-AV: generate draft charters or something like that, so again, there's equal footing, and then… [79:45] MTS-AV: Redo the prioritization exercise all over from the get-go. [79:50] MTS-AV: That's… That's the other way we could go. Where do you guys want… want us to go? [79:57] MTS-AV: My suggestion is… We're reviewing and providing feedback [80:03] MTS-AV: for our meeting and our discussions that we've had, so suggesting a process improvement for next cycle. So I see it as that, let's just keep the way things are, but going forward, we have the suggestion to improve the process for the next cycle. [80:18] MTS-AV: Got it, Jeff? [80:20] MTS-AV: So just to recount something from Panama City, and I looked at Danielle. [80:25] MTS-AV: What is our capacity for a number of concurrent work parties per year? [80:30] MTS-AV: 3, right? Yeah, 3. We now have a list if we add last year's list to this year's list. [80:36] MTS-AV: Close to 40 topics? [80:39] MTS-AV: So I just, I'm wondering, you're right, we're spending a lot of time worrying about this very long list, what our capacity is. [80:46] MTS-AV: Correct. The capacity doesn't change, but the… it's about process, cleanliness that Our members who prioritized considered… [80:58] MTS-AV: all of the topics, not only the topics from this year, right? So that's what we're having a discussion about. I understand, but my point is, as soon as we get past the top 5 to 10, [81:10] MTS-AV: Why are we worrying about the partitions of the next 30? [81:12] MTS-AV: Because the chance of getting to them within the terms of the people currently on SSAC… And the only unknown there, Jeff, is… [81:21] MTS-AV: There may be that one… a topic from last year is actually deemed high enough of a priority that it [81:28] MTS-AV: that it beats one of these topics. And I agree, but that's the top 10 of them. [81:33] MTS-AV: If we combine last year's list with this year's current list, we have a very long list. We do. And the capacity to get to the majority of them is not within our capacity. [81:43] MTS-AV: So, yeah, I think we just get to keep focusing on the top of the pile in the prioritization, but once you don't hit that top, it just stays on the list. [81:51] MTS-AV: Prioritizing below that seems to be… I mean, one other approach would be, Jeff, we say we take the top 3 from this year, and last year we prioritized 2. We could take the top 3 from last year. [82:04] MTS-AV: and mash them all up, put that in front of the membership and say, this was your vote of this year's top three, and this was. [82:13] MTS-AV: The membership at that time's vote of last year's last three. [82:16] MTS-AV: And now, go and do it. It still is a restart of the process, but, you know, I'm kind of making this up on the fly, but I'm trying to accommodate process cleanliness with expediency as well. [82:30] MTS-AV: Audience for you, Robert. [82:35] MTS-AV: So I would say, maybe for this one time we could do this. We could take like the past, like top 3 from last year. But going forward, I don't think this is something practical to do to take lists like topics from previous and put them on the table again. I think if people in the past suggested [83:00] MTS-AV: work parties, they can like resubmit again in the new round instead of us looking back again. And also sometimes [83:14] MTS-AV: with time, things change, right? So, for example, this year, I could think that this topic has a priority and is important, but as the year passes, maybe some new elements are introduced that, like, changes this perspective. So I think maybe this one time we can do this, but [83:39] MTS-AV: Afterwards, it doesn't make… Much sense to, like, take lists from previous years. [83:46] MTS-AV: Robert? Yeah, I'll be short. I'll defer to leadership to figure out how many from the previous year, but I think another aspect of the previous year list that could be helpful is for new members that we have coming in to think… to know what were the topics that we [84:00] MTS-AV: We're thinking about the previous year, which ones we selected. It also helps them as well, too, because we've had a lot of new members, and sometimes [84:09] MTS-AV: not everyone knows that, so I think it could be helpful in that regards as well. [84:13] MTS-AV: Lauren. [84:15] MTS-AV: So I think what we're saying is this time we're gonna take the last couple from last time and put it in the, and the top couple from this time, put 'em together and people vote on that. And going forward, we'll make it clear that if you want something to be considered, you should present it. [84:30] MTS-AV: I mean, I do kind of agree with. I think it was Greg that [84:34] MTS-AV: If work parties are taking a year or two. [84:37] MTS-AV: it gets very complicated to try and remember, like, which set we're going to be doing. It also seems really unfair, though, that if a work party takes so long that it doesn't make it in this year, we just kind of drop it and forget it, because, you know, then we don't have a good incentive to get stuff done. [84:53] MTS-AV: So, do you want to go through this re… reprioritization exercise? [84:58] MTS-AV: You know, another approach that was sent to me was. [85:05] MTS-AV: potentially, you could Say, this is what we voted on this year. [85:10] MTS-AV: and send a note to the membership that says, this is… these are the top 3 that were voted on in the prior year. Do you believe that any of these [85:18] MTS-AV: should overcome… [85:21] MTS-AV: the 3 from this year. Right? So that's not a full exercise, but it but it at least provides, you know, members ability to [85:32] MTS-AV: to voice a point of view. Danielle. [85:36] MTS-AV: Just a point of clarification, AI abuse, DNS transparency, and DOC are all… [85:43] MTS-AV: Maybe not DOC. What, what… And Ride were all… were the top 3 from the 2025 workshop. So it's not the top 3 from last year, it's the next 3. It would be the top 3 that was not worked on, is what I really mean. [86:00] MTS-AV: Matthias, then Warren. [86:02] MTS-AV: Yeah, two things. So, the first thing I wanted to say was already what Danielle was saying. So, actually, the top three were the ones where the work parties were established. [86:12] MTS-AV: But I also think in general, I'm a fan of looking into the future rather than looking too much into the past. So I mean, I think it's a good idea to maybe show them the next three ones, but not more, because I still think also newer members have the chance always to… [86:28] MTS-AV: bring up some ideas and say, look, I want to work on that. [86:31] MTS-AV: So… and there… most of the members are grown-up people, so I think they can… they can have a look, or even ask some older members, if they want to, so… I think it's good, maybe, to look for another three ones, but not more, and then really try to wrap it up and find something what we can do in the future. [86:50] MTS-AV: Do you want to do a new poll, or do you want it to be in information to the members, and then people get to… [86:59] MTS-AV: ask, I'd like to propose one. How would you like to do it? [87:05] MTS-AV: I mean, this is for all of you, not… Yeah, maybe, maybe the poll is something where people then really need to decide and cannot say, oh, I was not aware, I missed it whatsoever, so maybe it's good to have a poll. [87:17] MTS-AV: Georgia? [87:19] MTS-AV: I think I sort of I made a point about being a newer member and then I think the point that I'm trying to make is that for newer members to feel confident about proposing a work party, it's really good to know what has been [87:32] MTS-AV: just discussed or proposed before, so that you're not coming in proposing this idea that you think is sort of new or whatever, and maybe it's not. And to kind of understand what's been going on. So I think just having, I guess. [87:46] MTS-AV: I don't know, a spreadsheet or something so that people can keep track and learn about them. That would be really helpful. [87:55] MTS-AV: Yeah, I mean, George's idea sounds like a great one. We should keep a list, because also then people can look through it and be like, oh, that one that we didn't like 4 years ago is now wildly important to the top of mind. But yeah, I had still sort of understood that [88:08] MTS-AV: We had a queue that we were working our way through, and so that the next thing on the queue was what we were gonna be working on, so… [88:16] MTS-AV: That's why I'm a little surprised or disconcerted to hear that we might, you know, that the original plan was just dropping the things that we had already said we were working on. [88:27] MTS-AV: Fair enough, and… To be honest, Warren, the… [88:31] MTS-AV: Procedure for this has varied over the years, and we're trying to get it to be more… [88:38] MTS-AV: Regular and standardized, so that we all know how to go about doing it. [88:44] MTS-AV: Because in my years here on the SSAC, it's been a different process almost every time. [88:53] MTS-AV: Okay, so am I reading the consensus in the room that [88:59] MTS-AV: You want to do a a repoll. [89:02] MTS-AV: Pooling's so much fun. [89:05] MTS-AV: Is that what I'm reading? Do I… do I have a sense of… 3. [89:10] MTS-AV: Top 3 from this year, and… [89:13] MTS-AV: And the top 3 from this year, but it would be by category. [89:17] MTS-AV: Not… not just the top 3, because then you'd end up having 2 in just the BNS abuse. [89:24] MTS-AV: Right? [89:26] MTS-AV: Probably. [89:28] MTS-AV: I strongly recommend we let Danielle review the two lists. [89:33] MTS-AV: And then propose the format. [89:35] MTS-AV: And not on the spot. [89:39] MTS-AV: Anybody objected to Neil's suggestion? Never. [89:45] MTS-AV: Okay, alright. [89:48] MTS-AV: Look it's. [89:50] MTS-AV: This is the… this is the admin piece of it, but that actually… we had to get the process right, so that we have clarity in how we're doing it, and then we have, you know, kind of a consensus-based approach to what we're doing. Okay. [90:04] MTS-AV: Up. [90:05] MTS-AV: We are done. [90:08] MTS-AV: With this session, thank you for all of your work on this, and we are adjourned. Source: https://icann87.sched.com/event/2WjfT/ssac-work-session-1-of-5 Revision: 0735daec5bc9a3f327e6a6b2104203c85ea821164e4fc1b9b245bd4c40317712