[CWG-Stewardship] Notes from ŒNegotiation Call¹ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N

[Grace Abuhamad]

ŒNegotiation Call¹ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N
15 April at 13:00 UTC
 

Review of Edits/Actions:

Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or
this is just put informally to the community

Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a
similar table)

Action (staff): edit text for Phase 2 and circulate to CWG list prior to
Thursday call. Edits include:
* Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1"
* Update point a) to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by
complainant/IFO" (drop other text)
* Drop b)
* Edit d) to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure.

Action (Stephanie): look at special review triggering text


Agenda items:
1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)
2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z)
as identified by DT-M
3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions
4. Sidley punch list (including item #2)

Notes: 
Optimum is to not add any new structures

1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)
* DT-N worked on a table of reviews as part of the IANA functions contract.
Will review each item and see who/what is responsible and why?
* Review monthly performance report -- CSC will cover. This was accepted by
all. 
* Site visit -- CSC determined that site visits were not required. The PRT
will reserve the right for site visits
* Quarterly performance metrics -- CSC. Accepted by all
* Yearly customer survey -- CSC. Accepted by all
* Review securirty audit process -- CSC. Accepted by all
* Review RZM audit report --CSC. Accepted by all
* Review annual audit report -- CSC. Accepted by all

Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or
this is just put informally to the community

Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a
similar table)

2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z)
as identified by DT-M
Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. is open to anyone in Phase 1
and only open to registries in Phase 2

Phase 1
* There is no involvement of the CSC in Phase 1.
* Is it ok for anyone to submit a complain in phase 1? No objections
* In phase 1, process was adjusted to take CEO out of the escalation path.

Phase 1 escalation ends with involvement of the Ombudsman. If that does not
work, then complainant (only if registry) can enter phase 2.

Phase 2
* Process is only open to registries in Phase 2
* CSC has choice to get incolved or not. Is CSC ok with that role?
* CSC getting involved in registries' work is not what DT-C envisions for
CSC. CSC involved in mediation could be a liability and conflict issue.

Compromise text for Phase 2:
a) CSC is notified by complainant/IFO (drop other text)
[b) If deemed appropriate and feasible by the CSC, the CSC can try to
faciliate a solution]  (Suggestion to drop b) since CSC does not then need
to be involved in decisions. )
c) Direct customer can request a mediation

Comments point by point for phase 2:
Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1"

Point a) 
Edit to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO"

Point b) 
* Would replacing the word 'mediate' help solve the issue? Mediate is a
specific skill. "Facilitate" is acceptable word. "Discuss"? "interact"?
* Definition of IFO: DT-M did not go into detail about who would mediate on
behalf of IFO. 
* Square bracket B -- difficult to live with

Point c)
* Does the CSC assign a mediator or propose mediation? Difference in role
for CSC
* Could IANA have a list of mediators and have those results transferred to
the CSC

Point d)
Edit to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure.

Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z)
* To what extent what CSC Remedial Action Plan considered in designing IANA
Problem Management Escalation Process?
* 4, 5, and possibly 6, are points of difference.
* Can accept the mediation but include community mediation before escalatig
through accountability mechanisms.
* Perhaps step 5 goes to Periodic Review instead of IRP


3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions
* review would take place 2 years after transition
* review would take place every 5 years
* special reviews could be requested by CSC if/where needed (CSC could
trigger, but is not alone)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150415/28c2691c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150415/28c2691c/smime.p7s>