[CWG-Stewardship] DT-M Notes, Recordings, Transcript | 7 April

Tue Apr 7 14:45:18 UTC 2015

Dear all, 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting 7 April are available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895208

Action Items

Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current
emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone
Maintainer.

Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue
applicable legal resources that may be available. 

Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would
make it imcompatible with DT-C approach

Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct
customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC

Action item (staff): accept other edits made

Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved,
the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include
spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these
areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes)

Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to
different steps in the processes.

Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional
organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint.

Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management
Escalation Process 

Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to
Friday's meeting

Notes

Notes 7 April DT M

*        Consider adding a paragraph that explains what has been updated / changed compared to
existing procedures instead of showing changes line by line.

Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current
emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone
Maintainer.

*        Legal redress via court should remain an option - that is always an option, not precluded
by these procedures. Does this need to be made explicit? Possible footnote on other legal remedies
that may be pursued?

*        All of the escalation procedures should have timeframes associated with them and
automatically moves to the next step if not resolved within the timeframe indicated. This is
intended to be able to identify how long a certain task would take. It may be difficult as it may
depend on when the request is made and issue at hand. Consider including indicative timelines?
Already addressed on page 6 ('what is the expected time line') so no further action needed.

Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue
applicable legal resources that may be available.  

*        Keep ombudsman option optional

3. a. Discuss Stephan's input

*        Currently IANA team allows anyone to send in complaint - proposed changes would make it
more narrow. However, it may be inconsistent with DT-C if it is not limited to direct customers?
consider making step 2 of customer service complaint resolution process only available to direct
customers should it indeed be an issue? Issues could potentially be raised by non-customers via
liaisons in CSC or ombudsman for step 2?

Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would
make it imcompatible with DT-C approach

Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct
customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC

Action item (staff): accept other edits made

3. b. Implementation Paper

*        Circulated to ensure consistency with DT M work (is intended to be part of DT C work)

*        Reference to 30 days may need to be updated as it has been taken out from DT M work

4. Annex Z

a.       Adding CCWG accountability steps such as spilling the Board and/or separating the IANA
functions from ICANN?

b.      Adding triggers for escalation steps where needed?

c.       Including a step for initiating an RFP?

*        Is format / approach with regard to RFP in scope for DT M? May not be feasible in any case
before upcoming deadline.

*        Are there any triggers that need to be added? Triggers are in the process itself - customer
will look for resolution until 'ticket' is closed. May not need further triggers?

Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved,
the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include
spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these
areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes)

Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to
different steps in the processes.

5.       Discuss remaining  two questions from the DT-M scoping document:

c) What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD
Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) have in escalating 
IANA naming services problems?

*        As all others should have standing to raise issues. However, should these groups have
standing for step 2 or should they follow non-direct customer path. 

Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional
organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint.

f) What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA name services issues?

*        Can use complaint process. Should also have access to Problem Management Escalation
Process?

Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management
Escalation Process

Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to
Friday's meeting

Next meeting DT M: 12:00-13:30 UTC | 10 April

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150407/4f4960a0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150407/4f4960a0/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150407/4f4960a0/smime-0001.p7s>