[DTC CSC] Feedback to DT M

[Martin Boyle]

Thanks both, good stuff!

I think Staffan should note that the CSC's primary role is on ensuring quality of service and it is not an operational role.  We should point out that this role is missing from the DT-M work.

I would welcome us saying something clear on what is not the CSC role - the root-zone emergency (operational) and complaint resolution (another discussion - DT-B? - and more general mechanisms in ICANN) are not the role of the CSC except perhaps ex-post monitoring.

Best

Martin

PS I might be a little late for tomorrow's call (taking daughter to station as she heads home has to take precedence - even if she didn't let me know in good time).



Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Apr 2015, at 19:54, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Staffan
> 
> I think your suggested responses reflect the concerns we discussed yesterday. 
> 
> In thinking about this, it does raise the question of whether we should include the following in our Charter: "The CSC may receive complaints from registry operators regarding IANA performance and can act as an intermediary in an attempt to resolve complaints."
> 
> The CSC should be aware of individual complaints, as Stephanie noted yesterday, but I don't see a role for the CSC in dispute resolution. 
> 
> If we allow the CSC to receive complaints they will have to become decision makers and in terms of remedies or enforcement I just don't think we want the CSC to become embroiled in such disagreements, which I think was largely Martin's point yesterday, particularly when you consider that you would have registry operators involved in disputes between IANA and other registry operators.
> 
> So, I think you have captured our discussion of yesterday well, but I think our team needs to think a bit more about whether to maintain the point above in the Charter. I'd welcome input from others.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Donna
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Staffan Jonson
> Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015 8:40 AM
> To: dt3 at icann.org
> Subject: [DTC CSC] Feedback to DT M
> 
> All
> 
> DT M is eager for feedback from my questions last.
> 
> I propose I send them text below. OK?
> 
> Any input welcome
> 
> ###########################
> 
> All
> DT C had a meeting Wednesday regarding coming proposal. We had due to lack of time a very short discussion on proposed escalation process as described by me in previous papers. 
> My take-back from DT C is that there are some issues with the proposal presented by DT M, e.g.
> 
> *Initial text*
> - Initial language giving 'Anyone' standing to initiate complaints according to Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process was not considered consistent with expectations formulated in DT C - CSC. According to DT C proposal, CSC should be kept a minimal organization (maybe only five members). Giving Anyone standing to open complaints might risk overburdening the CSC functions, and thus malfunction. 
> 
> *Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process* (according to Annex Y, Step 2)
> - Another issue is the idea of having CSC acting as mediator. According to DT C proposal, CSC should be kept a minimal organization (maybe only five members). The role as mediator would thereby not fit into this minimalistic approach. 
> 
> - A third issue is how a potential mediator role in CSC would be appointed, by who, and by what rules? 
> 
> 
> My conclusion is that we will not have time for developing a consensus on this between DT:s before Monday, so I suggest we leave text with brackets/placeholders for different views.
> 
> 
> 
> #################################
> 
> :)
> Staffan
> 
> staffan.jonson at iis.se
> +46 73 317 39 67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dt3 mailing list
> dt3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt3
> _______________________________________________
> dt3 mailing list
> dt3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt3