[DTC CSC] Public comments 216 & 220

[Staffan Jonson]

I'm happy with all these responses.
:)
Staffan

Från: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] För Martin Boyle
Skickat: den 31 maj 2015 17:40
Till: dt3 at icann.org
Ämne: [DTC CSC] Public comments 216 & 220

Hi all,

"The dual structure that is expected to monitor (Customer Standing Committee - CSC) and review (IANA Functional Review Team - IFRT) the PTI replaces the role currently executed by the NTIA. It allows both customers and other stakeholders to oversee IANA's performance and evolution. Considering the importance of such functions, we deem appropriate that further details be provided regarding where and how exactly these organisations are going to be established.
"We would recommend further clarity on the organisational structure of the CSC, including its juridical profile - a Committee within the PTI or ICANN, and its funding mechanisms." (CENTR)

"The composition as well as the functions and responsibilities of the CSC are in line with Afnic's expectations. However, we note that its secretariat would be provided by PTI. In order to guarantee the smooth and independent functioning of the CSC, Afnic would recommend that the budget allocated to it should include an independent secretariat." (Afnic)

I'm not sure that we have properly discussed the options of where, how and when the CSC would be established.  If I remember correctly on one of Friday's calls the direction of travel seemed to be that it was established as a committee in ICANN and this would have my support bearing in mind that it is set up by the GNSO RySG and the ccNSO with liaisons from other ICANN-established groups.

Given that it (according to us) should escalate through the GNSO and ccNSO (and that this is likely to require some bylaw change, I'd be inclined to suggest that it could be established under the bylaws.  (It would need to be in place for any transfer of the IANA functions operator to a new organisation, should ICANN re-tender the contract should PTI not perform satisfactorily, so it needs to be independent of PTI.)  And its role needs to be built into the contract between ICANN and the PTI and any subsequent IANA functions operator.

We did discuss funding - if I remember correctly we agreed that little funding would be needed (and certainly not travel funding), but that it would need a secretariat.  We proposed that this should be provided by the PTI and I see no reason why this should not be the basis for the revised proposal.  However, the Afnic comment suggests funding allocated to CSC should include an independent secretariat.  My feeling is that a fully independent secretariat could be slow to establish and expensive, without really bringing any benefits.  It could actually be a disadvantage as it could complicate communications between the CSC and the PTI.  However, the PTI does need to provide an independent and professional service (providing reports in good time, preparing documents on the instruction of the CSC, organising discussions with people at in the PTI, preparing (again on instruction) reports for wider dissemination...) as well as providing the clerical and administration services (arranging calls - scheduling, providing the bridge etc -, providing transcripts and meeting notes, etc).

Having seen how long it took the ICG to establish its independent secretariat, I would not want to inflict this process on anyone!

If there are problems, I guess that the CSC could call for a fully independent operator or this could be a recommendation from a special or periodic IFR.

So I suggest that we respond to CENTR's concerns as:


·         We believe that the CSC should be created as a committee of ICANN under a bylaw requirement.  The CSC would need to be referred to in ICANN's contract with the PTI and the role of the ccNSO and GNSO in operational issues - the consideration of an escalation process - would also need to be amended under the ICANN bylaws.

·         The CSC should be in place before transition.

For CENTR and Afnic:

·         Funding for the CSC will be very limited (mainly secretariat requirements):  this should be provided by ICANN.

For Afnic:

·         We agree that the CSC secretariat needs serious and careful consideration.  A fully independent secretariat has some advantages, but we believe that these can be met by specifying the obligation of the PTI to provide secretariat support to the CSC at its request.  A secretariat from the PTI (or subsequently to a new IANA functions operator contractor) provides a clear advantage in simplifying and enabling communications between the CSC and the PTI.

·         The role of the secretariat are expected to be limited:  organisational (setting up meeting calls and ensuring the timely provision of reports from the PTI); and (on the instruction and for the approval of the CSC) drafting any formal communications from the CSC to the PTI, the ICANN Board, the ccNSO & GNSO and (regularly) for publication to the wider community:  these reports would be signed off by the CSC.

·         As such, we do not believe that a fully independent secretariat is necessary or desirable.  However, we do believe that it should be clear that the PTI is obliged to provide a professional and impartial service to the CSC and that the CSC should have the right, should the secretariat fail to meet expectations, to request independent support from ICANN.

·         The performance of the secretariat could be monitored and evaluated by a periodic or special IFR.

What do you think?

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150602/e222a9dd/attachment.html>