<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Dear All,</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Please find below the proposed responses to some of the comments related to escalation mechanisms that have been developed by DT M. Note that DT M is still considering, with input from DT C, its
response to a comment from AFRALO which suggested that the PTI Board should be able to ask for an SIFR. As soon as the DT M / DT C have come to agreement on that issue the proposed response will be shared with the mailing list.</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Best regards,</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Marika</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"><span lang="SV">Escalation by CSC to GNSO and ccNSO is adding a layer of escalation that may not be necessary. CSC
could call for SIFR instead. (Centre for Democracy & Technology) – DT M<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><b>Proposed CWG Response</b>: The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. Escalation
to IFR was considered beyond the scope of the CSC, instead as any issues raised would relate directly to the technical performance of IANA, ccNSO and GNSO were considered to have direct access to broader community input on this issue and would be in a position
to make an assessment on appropriate next steps. The GNSO and ccNSO step is an approval step with multi-stakeholder involvement, not an escalation mechanism as such. Having only the CSC initiate an SIFR may not be appropriate considering its limited remit
and size.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"><span lang="SV">Question from intensive working sessions: Should CWG consider whether GNSO should be changed to RySG
– ccNSO and RySG would consider whether it should be escalated to a multi-stakeholder process to determine next steps?<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><b>Proposed CWG Response</b>: DT M proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organizations
are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholders into separate SGs and Constituencies. The ccNSO is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder
entity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"><span lang="SV">Inconsistencies between CSC and its responsibilities and the IFR (NCSG)<i> – DT M</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.15pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.15pt;"><b>Proposed CWG Response:</b> The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. As a
result, there may be inconsistencies between CSC and IFR escalation mechanisms. We believe these have been addressed in the next iteration of the proposal. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.15pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"><span lang="SV">All deliberations and output should be transparent. CSC should not escalate to ccNSO or GNSO as these
are policy bodies. (ALAC)<i> – DT C</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><b>Proposed CWG Response</b>: DT M understands the concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. Furthermore, DT M notes that
GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation of adopted GNSO policies, and as such can raise alarms and request a SIFR. Also, DT M observes that the GNSO is about more than only policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>