No Guidance?

[陳曼茹 Manju Chen]

I was re-writing another long email struggling to explain my rationale but
this email came just in time.

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 11:00 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Actually, this is a fairly convincing argument,
>
> If we as a matter of policy create guidance, it will be examined by any
> DPA investigating a complaint about the SSAD.  The co-controllers will be
> held accountable for whether or not they adhere to it.  It may be reference
> in the Registrars Accreditation Agreements, negotiations for which are
> going on as we argue about this.  There is no reason that I can see to
> include the guidance that has been developed in our policy, I do not agree
> that this particular ship has sailed.  As far as I am concerned, it is
> still in drydock.
>
> OK, so finally you are confronting the issue of Guidance. Although I think
> your reasoning about DPAs is invalid, “No change, no guidance” is a
> coherent position – ASSUMING the ship has not sailed. So are you prepared
> to come to the EPDP meeting tomorrow, and announce with me, that NCSG are
> abandoning the ship, and no longer want to see any guidance developed? I
> will go along with that, once/if we receive confirmation from the PC or the
> vote of this list.
>
> We can justify our shift in the following way:
>
> 1.       If there is guidance, NCSG have proven to be completely unable
> to agree on what it should be. It is safer for Registrants not to have any,
> and rely on market choices among CPs to protect registrants
>
> 2.       We are concerned about legal obligations or liabilities that
> might be incurred by registrants self-identification as a company or legal
> person.
>
> 3.       We don’t want the guidance to be mandatory, but if it’s not
> mandatory why do we need it?
>
> 4.       There is a chance that it might become a de facto standard
>
> So I cast my vote: NO on guidance (yes this is a shift)
>
I have no problem supporting this. It's a good argument.

Now tell me what you propose to do if they go ahead and develop guidance?
> Here is what you say:
>
> What we have been discussing in the EPDP is the guidance that the
> registrars have already developed on a voluntary basis.  We can simply
> leave them to do this.  There is no need to treat the deliberations of this
> EPDP as holy writ that cannot be set aside, we have debated all kinds of
> nonsense over the past three years.  Putting it in a google doc does not
> mean it cannot land on the cutting room floor.
>
> This would be a fail, in my opinion. If the CPs develop guidance, it will
> become part of the Phase 2a report. All the arguments you make against
> guidance would still apply. A more desirable idea is that we get the CPs to
> abandon guidance as well, or at least enough of them to block consensus.
> From Volcker’s statement on behalf of Registrars I got the idea they are
> going along with guidance because they think everyone wants it.
>
> That was also my concern, that we're not exactly on the same page with the
CPs. I've always felt like they're not against having guidance, but I'm
optimistic that they will embrace the 'no guidance' stance, too.

Best,
Manju
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210505/49729f1c/attachment.htm>