<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">‘Negotiation Call’ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">15 April at 13:00 UTC</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><i>Review of Edits/Actions</i></b>: </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community</font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table)</font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (staff): edit text for Phase 2 and circulate to CWG list prior to Thursday call. Edits include: </font></div><ul><li><font color="#0000ff">Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1" </font></li><li><font color="#0000ff">Update point a) to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO" (drop other text)</font></li><li><font color="#0000ff">Drop b)</font></li><li><font color="#0000ff">Edit d) to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure. </font></li></ul><div><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (Stephanie): look at special review triggering text</font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Agenda items</b>:</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4. Sidley punch list (including item #2)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Notes</b>: </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Optimum is to not add any new structures</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><i>1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)</i></b></div><ul><li>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?</li><li>Review monthly performance report -- CSC will cover. This was accepted by all. </li><li>Site visit -- CSC determined that site visits were not required. The PRT will reserve the right for site visits </li><li>Quarterly performance metrics -- CSC. Accepted by all</li><li>Yearly customer survey -- CSC. Accepted by all</li><li>Review securirty audit process -- CSC. Accepted by all</li><li>Review RZM audit report --CSC. Accepted by all</li><li>Review annual audit report -- CSC. Accepted by all</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community</font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><b>Action</b> (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table)</font></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><i>2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M</i></b></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. is open to anyone in Phase 1 and only open to registries in Phase 2 </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Phase 1</b></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>There is no involvement of the CSC in Phase 1. </li><li>Is it ok for anyone to submit a complain in phase 1? No objections</li><li>In phase 1, process was adjusted to take CEO out of the escalation path. </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Phase 1 escalation ends with involvement of the Ombudsman. If that does not work, then complainant (only if registry) can enter phase 2. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Phase 2</b></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>Process is only open to registries in Phase 2</li><li>CSC has choice to get incolved or not. Is CSC ok with that role?</li><li>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. </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Compromise text for Phase 2</b>: </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a) CSC is notified by complainant/IFO (drop other text)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strike>[b) If deemed appropriate and feasible by the CSC, the CSC can try to faciliate a solution]</strike> (Suggestion to drop b) since CSC does not then need to be involved in decisions. )</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">c) Direct customer can request a mediation </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Comments point by point for phase 2</b>: </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1" </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><u>Point a) </u></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Edit to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO"</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><u>Point b) </u></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>Would replacing the word 'mediate' help solve the issue? Mediate is a specific skill. "Facilitate" is acceptable word. "Discuss"? "interact"?</li><li>Definition of IFO: DT-M did not go into detail about who would mediate on behalf of IFO. </li><li>Square bracket B -- difficult to live with </li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><u>Point c)</u></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>Does the CSC assign a mediator or propose mediation? Difference in role for CSC</li><li>Could IANA have a list of mediators and have those results transferred to the CSC</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><u>Point d)</u></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Edit to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure. </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) </b></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>To what extent what CSC Remedial Action Plan considered in designing IANA Problem Management Escalation Process?</li><li>4, 5, and possibly 6, are points of difference. </li><li>Can accept the mediation but include community mediation before escalatig through accountability mechanisms. </li><li>Perhaps step 5 goes to Periodic Review instead of IRP</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b><i>3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions</i></b></div><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>review would take place 2 years after transition</li><li>review would take place every 5 years</li><li>special reviews could be requested by CSC if/where needed (CSC could trigger, but is not alone)</li></ul><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></div></body></html>