[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG DT-M Meeting 19 May

Tue May 19 21:17:28 UTC 2015

Dear all, 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG DT-M Meeting on 19 May are available here:
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895707>
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895707

Kind regards,

Brenda

Feedback from Staffan (per email):

In order to speed things up I'm happy to give my input on the Punch list items, since it (hopefully)
is uncontroversial 

*1. Walk through input (Punchlist) from DT C*

Punchlist from DTC:

I'm also engaged in DT-C and is happy with comments submitted by Chuck (From Donna and DT C)

In punch-list 11-16: CSC design: we committed in DT C not to over-regulate the CSC.

Discussion revolved around giving the CSC the discretion to handle e.g. punch list item no 15:

To agree inbetween CSC and PTI how procedures or remedial actions will be developed post transition
(and not before transition)

In punch list item 16:

It is noted that  CSC can escalate complaints to ccNSO and GNSO, which may then decide to take
further action "using agreed consultation and escalation  processes."

DT C response:

For ccNSO and GNSO respectively, it is up to their own discretion to formulate internal
processes/procedures for escalation. DT C response indicate that such internal processes 
can be developed post transition (i.e.) not urgent, and that own initiatives for alternative routes
to remedies may appear (e.g. direct contact with ICANN board).

Sidley punchlist item no 21 relate to what happens if ccNSO/GNSO decide to escalate unresolved
issues. To What function/organization would that escalation happen?

DT C answer here is that it is dependent on escalation procedures developed in ccNSO/GNSO, which is
post transition).

This item has been hanging lossely in process for some while now.

My personal view is that the DT C answer is good enough. What about You?

Are there issues or concern re. item 21 in the punch list, or proposed answer to it?

In punch list item 22: DT C also relates to process that can be developed post transition.

Any concern for this? I'm happy with the proposed solution. 

As noted in the CSC answer and also noted by Paul Kane in the list, there are demands from several
actors in cc community that escalation also need to be specified with 
consice timeframes for remedials. This specification of service expectations go further than the two
dys mentioned by Marika in the list.

Punch list item 23: Maybe this one need some discussion during next meting Monday?

*2. Walk through of escalation flow charts*

Escalation flow charts sent by Marika are a key improvement for understanding the processes (such
charts have already been demanded by cc community members).

Notes 19/5

*        See also comments circulated by Staffan on 13/5

*        No disagreement in relation to item 11

*        No disagreement in relation to item 12

*        No disagreement in relation to item 13

*        In relation to comment 14, in selecting liaisons, ccNSO/GNSO may want to factor in
technical expertise. Separation CWG (SCWG) would also include a CSC liaison (new item 14a?) who
would in addition to technical skills should also have RFP expertise. 

*        Item 15 - second sentence could say PTI 'staff" with the qualifier that it should be with
the director / leadership of PTI or their designee..

*        Item 16 - should leadership of ccNSO and GNSO be engaged on this topic to give them a
heads-up that additional work may be required (ideally before finalisation of proposal)?

*        Item 21 - in the case of the GNSO, individual registry operators that are impacted by a
delegation / redelegation decision should be individually able to start an IRP in the view 
of the RySG. Should this also be an option for the GNSO and/or the RySG? It may not be practical for
the GNSO / RySG to do so? Other option would be to call for an IANA 
Function Review. IRP only works if there has been a decision, if there is another issue, an IRP
would not apply. According to DT M, there could possibly be three avenues for 
IRP usage: individual TLDs, GNSO/ccNSO, RySG (in cases of systemic issues, not individual registry
cases). Unresolved issues, if it is decided that they need to be escalated, these 
could be escalated to the IFRT. Would a direct dialogue with the IFO also be an option? First step
could be for ccNSO/GNSO to request IFO to provide explanation as well as agrieved 
party (if further information would be needed) so that information from all affected parties is
available before next steps are decided upon (mediation?). Staffan to check as DT C may 
have something similar in its documentation. If the issue is not resolved, and it is agreed that
escalation is needed, IFRT would be invoked. 
Escalation does not necessarily require an issue that is relevant / of impact to both SOs, but for
escalation of performancie issue / systematic problem to IFRT support 
from both SOs is needed. In summary, step 1) issue could be raised to one of the SOs who could do
fact finding and try to mitigate, 2) could also recommend an IRP, 3) both 
SOs agree on escalation on IFR,

*        Item 22 - consider going with DT C recommendation (leave it up to CSC)

*        Item 23 - not DT M role to design mediation, but is this something that staff could assist
with (not necessary for final recommendations, but could recommend 
that work needs to be commenced on mediation services and explore / decide what the options are).
Registry agreements could be a possible model (Marika to check what 
experience exists with regards to mediation services).

Escalation flow charts

*        Add on page 1, add to 'decision to escalate to phase 2' that it is only accessible for
direct customers

*        If complainant does not decide to escalate to phase 2, the process ends. Does not preclude
individual registry operator to initiate IRP or other avenues available (include 
footnote similar as in the document)

*        Both parties must have the ability to escalate. Consider adding a footnote that also notes
that IFO and ombudsman could also escalate. 

*        What happens if issue is not resolved and it is not a direct customer? Indirect customer
always has the ombudsman as a vehicle as well as through liaisons in CSC. 

*        Update on phase 2 that IFO and Ombudsman could also initiate phase 2. 

*        Move decision box down underneath CSC and clarify there that it can be escalated to phase 2
by IFO, complainant or ombudsman.

*        DT/CWG to consider where to include the flow charts.

*        Page 2 - Update title, update first box to read complainant / IFO / Ombudsman, add to
'baseball home plate' see next page.

*        Page 3 - add decision box for 'if satisfactory' and 'if unsatisfactory'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150519/7538dd52/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/20150519/7538dd52/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/20150519/7538dd52/smime-0001.p7s>