[DTC CSC] CSC Charter 0 7

[David Conrad]

Donna,

Speaking for myself only, the wording looks fine for me.

If others feel gives the CSC an inappropriate role, I would think a key
recommendation from the Design Team to the CWG is that some (other)
mechanism must be defined to accommodate technological/evolutionary changes
in the Internet.

Regards,
-drc

From:  Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
Date:  Friday, April 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM
To:  "dt3 at icann.org" <dt3 at icann.org>
Cc:  David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>, Kim Davies
<kim.davies at icann.org>
Subject:  CSC Charter 0 7

> All
>  
> I think I¹ve captured the changes suggested from the call this morning.
>  
> On the big issue of Œtechnological changes¹ I¹ve flagged that the Design Team
> has concerns about the CSC being responsible for anything other than
> monitoring. I¹ve also provided some new text to try to overcome that concern,
> which I¹m repeating here for ease of reference. I¹m happy to take this out and
> just leave what we had and express our concerns if others do not think this is
> a viable option in that it does not overcome our primary concern.
>  
> The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorised to discuss
> with the IANA Functions Operator ways to enhance the provision of IANA¹s
> operational services to meet changing technological environments; as a means
> to address performance issues; or other unforeseen circumstances. In the event
> it is agreed that a material change in IANA functions services or operations
> would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the right to call for a community
> consultation and independent validation, to be convened by IANA, on the
> proposed change. Any recommended change must be approved by the ccNSO and
> RySG.
>  
> The IANA Functions Operator would be responsible for implementing any
> recommended changes and must ensure that sufficient testing is undertaken to
> ensure smooth transition and no disruption to service levels.
>  
> I¹m conscious that we need to wrap this up today and get to the CWG, but it
> would be useful if we could defer until such time as Staffan and Martin have
> had a chance to review.
>  
> Thanks 
>  
> Donna
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150410/5993cde7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150410/5993cde7/smime.p7s>