Today I feel like some guy who spent 6 years studying the curvature of iguana toes (or something equally random) and finally sees questions about them for the first time in his life :D.
Significant effort is spent detailing the relevant parts the RSEP process, confirming and detailing exactly how it was followed correctly. This specifically included whether certain matters were considered for referral (or should have been referred) to RSTEP for review. It's a tragedy to disagree with the well written reconsideration request document without responding to where you feel its analysis was incorrect & why, particularly content from sections:
- 4.2.1, designated to contain inquiries related to the RSEP process and if it was accurately followed, including:
- 4.2.1.3 referencing the parts of the RSTEP process defining when RSTEP should be engaged
- 4.2.2.1 highlighting how voluntary advanced collaboration prior to starting the RSEP process has made the dedicated referral processes referenced in 4.2.1.3 rarely relevant
- 4.2.2.2 containing a confirmation by the Ombuds that the preliminary portion of the process was done correctly and with the required info (including the list of 22k domains shared voluntarily before the preliminary phase began, without need to formally refer to RSTEP)
- & 4.3 concretely explaining in more plain terms why the Ombuds is sympathetic to the user but believes ICANN correctly followed the RSEP process in not engaging RSTEP for the concerns raised and re-raised
About the only thing I think could have been pre-emptively added was a reference to the definitions of Security and Stability concerns, which helps explain why it would have made no sense for RSEP to declare Security or Stability issues in need of referral during preliminary review, let alone "significant" and even ignoring the voluntary early engagement activity:
> 1.2 Security - An effect on security by the proposed Registry Service shall mean (A) the unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertion or destruction of Registry Data, or (B) the unauthorized access to or disclosure of information or resources on the Internet by systems operating in accordance with all applicable standards.
> 1.3 Stability - An effect on stability shall mean that the proposed Registry Service (A) is not compliant with applicable relevant standards that are authoritative and published by a well-established, recognized and authoritative standards body, such as relevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice RFCs sponsored by the IETF or (B) creates a condition that adversely affects the throughput, response time, consistency or coherence of responses to Internet servers or end systems, operating in accordance with applicable relevant standards that are authoritative and published by a well-established, recognized and authoritative standards body, such as relevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice RFCs and relying on Registry Operator's delegation information or provisioning services.
Requesting authorization to terminate a given service & related registrations is clearly neither an unauthorized action/disclosure on registry data as well as clearly not against an IETF RFC. Notably, "Stability" is not defined as "has impact to users" - as well stated towards the end of the reconsideration request:
> Second, on the consideration of material information – the loss of approximately 22,000 is important
to the individuals–however, this is not relevant to the strictly defined, community-developed policy
One can find the source for the material quoted in the reconsideration request response as well as the definitions I I added in above at https://www.icann.org/rsep-en/