<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Seun,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">1. I certainly do not see the charter in the bylaws (nor, for that matter, in the ICANN-PTI contract). I’ll leave to Donna to confirm
her position, but her response on question 2 gives a good description of how the charter fits into ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model and how any (I would expect quite unlikely given the general nature of the current charter) revisions would be progressed in
that framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">2. Just to be clear, I do not believe that the charter should be in the ICANN-PTI contract. Any terminology in the contract should
be of a general nature – as indicated in my fourth bullet and its sub-points. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As for decision participation, I think Donna gave a good summary in her response to your question 2.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I would agree that powers (paragraph 310: to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA functions for the direct customers
of the naming services; paragraph 311: … achieved through mechanisms to engage with the IANA functions operator to remedy identified areas of concern; and paragraph 312: … could escalate a failure to correct an identified deficiency to the ccNSO and GNSO)
or membership composition should need a good community support before they were amended.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">However, let’s remember that the Customer Standing Committee is to support the provision of the IANA functions operation for the names
operational community and processes for review are clearly laid out in the section at paragraph 356. This is already agreed text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 February 2016 00:30<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>On 3 Feb 2016 23:22, "Martin Boyle" <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> So the charter does need to be flexible and certainly should not be locked down in a bylaw – fundamental or standard. <br>
><br>
SO: If the understanding is that the charter would not be recognised as part of the bylaw document in anyway then that's fine by me. If that was what Donna was implying in his response to item 3 of my previous message then I think my concern on this can be
considered moot.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>><br>
I’d even wonder whether it should be detailed in the ICANN-PTI contract, except to note that it should be seen as the framework for resolving problems (or, if it fails to get issues remedied, to escalate).<br>
><br>
SO: I agree; I think it makes sense indeed use to use the contract to define it and not the bylaw. That said, even if the contract is used, I am of the opinion that a charter update should involve decisional participation of at least the GNSO/RySG, ALAC and
GAC which are the distinct communities that exists within ICANN.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>While I understand that there may be need to be flexible on the charter for operational reasons, section(s) of the charter relating to powers of CSC and composition of CSC should be subject to approval of the communities listed above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> <br>
><br>
> · As such, while it might be appropriate to make reference to the CSC in the bylaws, it should probably only be that the ccNSO and RySG/GNSO (delete as appropriate) should work together to establish such a committee.<br>
><br>
SO: I'd delete GNSO as I think the ccNSO and RySG would be applicable in the context of the so called "direct customers"and I hope this would be updated as a number of sections in the document shared referred to GNSO.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> <br>
><br>
> · I also wonder how much needs to be written down in an ICANN-PTI contract. The main CSC role will be monitoring the performance of PTI, in particular how well it is fulfilling it service level obligations (and understanding where there are problems
associated with meeting them). The draft charter gives examples of escalation processes/steps. It is because I see a lot of escalation to be a case-by-case decision (which is why I think that the action followed should not be too heavily specified. I think
that this is the only place where I diverge a bit from Chuck’s analysis: CSC was conceived as a committee of experts from customer organisations who would recognise where a failure was force majeure but of no serious consequence and when it was serious in
implications and represented a systemic failure. I do not think that this can be written in bylaws or contracts satisfactorily.<br>
><br>
SO: I agree<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>> <br>
><br>
> · Hence for the include in the ICANN-PTI contract I would be inclined to suggest:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> o An obligation on PTI to provide monthly reports to the CSC on performance against service level obligations and trends (with an explanation of deterioration of performance or failure to comply)<br>
><br>
> o An obligation on PTI to discuss performance with the CSC on a monthly basis<br>
><br>
> o An obligation on PTI and its Board to work with CSC to address problems<br>
><br>
> o An obligation on ICANN to respond to the CSC, should the CSC consider it necessary to raise concerns directly with ICANN<br>
><br>
> o A recognition that, should CSC not be able to address and resolve its concerns, it will escalate the issue(s) to the ccNSO and GNSO for decisions on further action, if avenues to resolve issues have been tried and failed.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> · I would agree that the CSC probably needs to develop its charter to cover remedial action and escalation, but I would note that we should recognise that the DT-C work cited examples of the sort of processes that could be followed: I certainly do
not see it as prescriptive except that it should seek to exhaust channels. Recognising as fundamental the role of CSC to help resolve issues and giving examples of escalation action could be helpfully covered in the charter.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> I’ve annotated the “staff analysis” spreadsheet with comments.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Martin<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna<br>
> Sent: 02 February 2016 23:45<br>
> To: Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>; Jonathan Robinson <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>><br>
><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Hi Seun<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> As the lead of the DT for the CSC, I’ve responded to your related questions inline below.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> I would also welcome input from Martin who was also a member of the DT for the CSC.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Donna<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2016 11:30 AM<br>
> To: Jonathan Robinson <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update & Planning for Feb 4th Meeting of CWG<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for the share, did a quick read and have a few general comments/question:<br>
><br>
> 1. Isn't there a way to have the CSC charter separate and not incorporated into the bylaw as the bylaw is looking quite bulky. That said, I note that it's referred to as Annex D so I assume that is perhaps the only reference that would exist in the bylaw?<br>
><br>
> DA COMMENT: I believe this is up for discussion of CWG members. While I think that it makes sense to have the existence of the CSC contained in the bylaws, the charter itself could simply be referenced, particularly given it is envisioned that the Charter
would be reviewed on a somewhat regular basis.<br>
><br>
> 2. I believe any change in the CSC charter should involved other chartering SO/AC not just be based on the ccNSO and GNSO decision.<br>
><br>
> DA COMMENT: The mission of the CSC is to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA Function for the direct customers of the naming services. The primary role of the CSC is to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service
level targets on a regular basis. It was the view of the DT that as the direct customers of the naming services came from the ccNSO and GNSO, that any changes to the Charter should only be ratified by those SOs.<br>
><br>
> The Charter does provide for input from all ICANN stakeholders through the provision of a public comment period associated with an initial review of the Charter to be conducted by representatives of the ccNSO and RySG after one year of the first meeting of
the CSC. Any recommended changes are to be ratified by the ccNSO and GNSO.<br>
><br>
> The Charter also provides that “… thereafter, the Charter will be reviewed at the request of the CSC, ccNSO or GNSO and may also be reviewed in connection with the IANA Function Review.” <br>
><br>
> The Charter is currently silent on how any future reviews should be conducted and it may make sense that any review requested by the CSC, ccNSO or GNSO follow the same form as the initial review in that it be conducted by representatives of the ccNSO and
RySG and that the “… review is to include the opportunity for input from other ICANN stakeholders, via a Public Comment process.”<br>
><br>
> I believe that any review of the CSC Charter conducted in connection with the IANA Function Review has a separate process.<br>
><br>
> 3. The CCWG proposed process to approve update of any text in the bylaw (including CSC charter) should be applied. So I think the charter update(depending on whether this will be standard or fundamental bylaw) should be subject to board approval.<br>
><br>
> DA comment: The DT did not believe that Board approval was required for a change to the CSC Charter and I do not support any suggestion that this be changed at this time.<br>
><br>
> 4. Some of the decision making does not recognise other community like ALAC as part of the decision makers. For instance the decision process for SCWG.<br>
><br>
> 5. Could it be indicated which of the texts goes to fundamental bylaw and which one to standard?<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> On 2 Feb 2016 6:21 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> A couple of updates since our previous meeting and ahead of our meeting on Thursday Feb 4 @ 16h00 UTC.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> We are waiting for the final wording from CWG Accountability in relation to our requirements on IANA Budget and IRP but now expect that these will be satisfactorily dealt with.<br>
>><br>
>> As per Grace’s note on the CCWG agenda for their meeting today, these matters were subject to “final reading” by the CCWG today.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> On the series of questions presented by Sidley in preparation for drafting the proposed ICANN Bylaws to deal with the work of the CWG Stewardship, Grace’s email of Jan 25 sought further input from our group.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Essentially we have:<br>
>><br>
>> a. Input from relevant DT leads (Thank-you!)<br>
>><br>
>> b. Input from staff<br>
>><br>
>> c. Remaining open questions<br>
>><br>
>> Any input to point c above will be helpful.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The plan (as per our last meeting and captured in Grace’s email of Jan 25) was to review and provide input so that responses can be provided to Sidley after the Feb 4 Call.<br>
>><br>
>> This work to be done via the mailing list by using the ‘track changes’ feature in Word. Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed.<br>
>><br>
>> If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting. <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> If you are able to review the document (re-attached for convenience) and provide any input over the next 24 hours or so, that will be very helpful.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Thank-you,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Jonathan & Lise<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>