[DTC CSC] CWG - Public Comment Review Tool - Action Items - 26 May 2015 CSC

[Donna Austin]

Thanks Chuck

I agree with your change on comment 220.

On comment 228, I have asked members of DT-C if they concur with the ccNSO and GNSO as the escalation point, rather than the ccNSO and RySG which was discussed during one of the many CWG calls recently. I think the DT-M reasoning for using the GNSO rather than the RySG as the escalation point is sound (along with points both yourself and Avri made on the call earlier today) and I tend to agree, but I hadn't heard back from our other RySG colleagues - I know Stephanie had a preference for RySG rather than GNSO. However, in the interests of time I think that DT-C should support DT-M's recommendation in this regard and support your suggested changes.

Thanks for reviewing.

Donna

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 12:06 PM
To: Donna Austin; dt3 at icann.org
Cc: lise.fuhr at difo.dk; jrobinson at afilias.info; Marika Konings (marika.konings at icann.org)
Subject: RE: CWG - Public Comment Review Tool - Action Items - 26 May 2015 CSC
Importance: High

Thanks Donna.  I just now found some time to review this.  Overall, the DT-C proposed responses look good to me.  Some specific comments follow.

Comment 220
What does "Secretariat provided by the PTI" mean?  Do it mean that the Secretariat would be a PTI staff member?  Or does it mean that PTI would fund the position of CSC Secretariat?  I assume the former because of the later comments regarding PTI knowledge.  Whatever, it might be helpful to be clear on this.  If I am correct on this, here is some rewording that might work: "The Design Team responsible for developing the CSC was supportive of a Secretariat provided from PTI staff."

Comment 228

Note that DT-M decided to recommending a change back to GNSO from RySG in the fourth paragraph of the DT-C response: "However, it does have the ability, after exhausting avenues of remedial action without satisfaction, to bring this to the attention of the ccNSO and the Registry Stakeholder Group GNSO as these bodies are representative of the large body of direct customers of the IANA naming function. (NB> this is a change that it would be more appropriate to escalate via the ccNSO and RySG)."

The first sentence in the next (5th) paragraph also needs updating: "The concerns about the GNSO and ccNSO not being appropriate bodies for the CSC to escalate problems because they are policy bodies are noted and the GNSO has been replaced by the RySG."

Similarly in the 6th paragraph: "It seems reasonable that the CSC should report back to the ccNSO and the RySGGNSO which would be able to assess from its membership whether the recommendation was appropriate."

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Chuck

From: Donna Austin [mailto:Donna.Austin at ariservices.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:23 PM
To: dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Cc: lise.fuhr at difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>; jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>; Marika Konings (marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>); Gomes, Chuck
Subject: CWG - Public Comment Review Tool - Action Items - 26 May 2015 CSC

Hi All

Attached are proposed responses to comments received on the CSC. I apologies for the delay in getting this done, but it was unavoidable.

Martin and Staffan, thanks for your contributions. While it may not be obvious from the content, I can assure you they were very helpful in developing responses.

We need to come to an agreement on whether the CSC would escalate unresolved performance issues to the ccNSO and GNSO (as stated in the proposal) or the ccNSO and RySG (see the attached email). I thought I was in favour of ccNSO and RySG, but DT-M has some good arguments about why ccNSO and GNSO is the way to go.

Marika, I'll take another look at the Charter in light of these comments.

Thanks

Donna

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150604/6bc459f8/attachment-0001.html>