[DTC CSC] CSC Charter 0 7

[Duchesneau, Stephanie]

I am comfortable with this language. I think there will have to be some reconciliation between this/the escalation language/the periodic review language when we convene next week, but this is inevitable.

The one question I would ask is whether this should be convened by ICANN and not IANA because consultation process itself seems beyond the function that would be carried out by the actual IANA department.

Thanks for all your work (and fearless leadership) on this Donna.

Stephanie

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040  Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Donna Austin; dt3 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [DTC CSC] CSC Charter 0 7

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

All

I think I've captured the changes suggested from the call this morning.

On the big issue of 'technological changes' I've flagged that the Design Team has concerns about the CSC being responsible for anything other than monitoring. I've also provided some new text to try to overcome that concern, which I'm repeating here for ease of reference. I'm 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 IANA's 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.

I'm 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/20150410/6d87b309/attachment-0001.html>