[DTC CSC] Notes to days call DT C ( CSC)

[Bart Boswinkel]

Notes DT C call 23 March 2015

1. Roll call
All except Sarah at the call

Discussion Overview Document
Overview section

Section 1. Agreed


Section 2. New section. Agreed

Section 3. Agreed

Ensure int eh charter that the CSC is mandated to decvvelop it s own working methods

Section 4. Agreed


Section 5.

Suggestion: CSCS and NTIA run in parrallel for a while.

Hand-over responsibilties of operational oversight role

If reporting is different, the reporting would be burdensome.

Face in approach, to avoid smooth transition.


Agreed but need to take into consideration issues identified above

Section 6:

Martin comment: avoid to be unduly prescriptive

Suggestion: 6, 7, 8 and 9 are linked / should be clustered with section 1

Action renumber section

Kim: In which circumstances, should you endevour to change.

Martin: leave the world "will" in.

Kurt: Grouping them together supported

Include word usually -> shall

Other groups will be talking about escalation. At the same time core is cooperation between IANA and CSC.

Donna: reference to escalation is included in section 10.


Martin: At the end of cooperative process, and only if this fails, escalation process will be pursued.

Proposal  is to sperate it.

Staffan: DT M proposal, quite detailed proposal on escalation process.


Donna: need to find middle ground


Section 7: Agreed

Section 8: Agreed


Section 9: new.

Staffan: do we need to decide it should be "annually"?

Donna: to have a regular meeting

Stephanie: Annual is incuded to distinguish from 4.

Kurt porposal: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting.

Action update language

Martin: The CSC shall hold a formal regular (typically annualy) meeting..


Kurt suggestion adopted

The CSC shall hold a formal regular (at least annual) meeting.

Action update language


Section 10:

Donna: the reason to move away from escalation, the word "esclation" comes with baggage.  At the same time needs to be adressed.

Martin: Will propose some language

10 bis or 11 bis could read "should resolution processes not remedy failings in the provision of the IANA functions service, CSC can escalate the issue in the process identified bt DT-M

Donna: CWG is used to the world "escalation"

Martin: concern is that "escaltion" goes out of CSC. Remedial action should stay within the CSC.

Staffan: CSC is initial point of escalation.

Donna:

1. direct customer can come to CSC

2. Overall management of the IANA, based on reporting. These two remedial should be clearly distinguished.


Individual TLD could seek remedial assitance from CSC, which is dealt with in Section 11

Donna: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M

Action: Revisit section 10 and 11, following conversation with DT M


Section 12.

Financial issue

Concern raised, some stakeholder group want to participate in CSC.

Stephanie: need for a narrow. At the same time it will be contentious also in context of discussion around MRT

Staffan: suggest to include two alternatives, to choose for consideration by the CWG

Martin: If CSC is doing its job well, it wil be boring. Having liaisons will be unnessary under these circumstances. Not mention the origin of liaisons. The liaisons from other ICANN groups, who should keep their group informed.

Donna: Include qualifications: should be kept small, and people on CSC should be qualified

Stephanie:  Differentiating between members and liaisons gives us some flexibility to define the roles (as martin is suggesting) when we have a sense of what kind of participation other groups are seeking

Strike the number and include reference to liaisons with description of role.

Martin: issue around "expert" . Suggestion CSC: CSC could seek "expert advisors".

Staffan: Frankfurt take away was the sense of capture, by including multi-stakehoderism. at othe level.

Suggestion Kim: IANA liaison to CSC. AS part of reporting function need for IANA to have a seat at the table. as non-voting participant.

Staffan: supports idea.

Martin: more then support. If there issues, this person would be able to explain to what and why

Stephanie: not opposed. The CSC will be interacting but to have one at the table .

Donna: Steve C suggedsted that RSSAC represent direct customers of naming function.

Staffan: include as liaison

Martin: Root server operators, special role, and as such should be part of CSC.

Kurt: Question whether laisiosn or member? they can always be elevated.

Kim: rare direct interaction. At the same time high interest, in the Root zone.

Donna: minimum of 2 ccTLD and 2 gTLDs, and liaisons from other groups and 1 IANA liaison.



Fundamental principles

Should be kept small and members should have relevant expertice

Two options:

1. TLDs ( cc and g) + RSSAC Liaisosn + 1 IANA Liaison

2. As 1, + other liaisons


Section 13

Staffan: Sounds reasonable. Original with MRT, but now back with CSC

Relaetd to change on how IANA does its business


Kurt: Endgame in escaltion process. Depends on composition

Martin: section 13 reflects outward facing aspects of the CSC.

Need to go out with proposals if changes.


Stephanie: 13 should include a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business

Review language to ensure it is about day-to dat business

Action Strike affect oversight of the IANA Naming Functions.

and replace with Stephanies suggestions:  a change to how IANA does its business OR to how the CSC does its business


Section 14

Donna:

14  is about escalation and step in separability, not mandated to make such a change.


Add, change to:   remediation /escalation process


Dependencies section of Document

Action Add dependency relating to DT M (Escalation)


Kim: IDN repository is not contracted, but falls under responsibility of IANA department. Other example: List of accredited registrars (also maintained by IANA department)


Martin: Management of .INT similar to other functions. If considered to be part of role of CSC, customers of INT should also be aprt of CSC


Kim: Majority of customer Intenrational org.

>From general perspective. it is considered part of naming function

Keep reference to .INT in.

Keep in reference to IDN repository as placeholder


Discussion on Table

Take out column CSC Perform


Row 3.4 Security Plan

Kim: if security , not to made public.

Martin: Okay with KIm's suggestion. Supports concept of 3rd party auditor, to show it has been gone through.


See comment Kim, to be included

Row 4.6: leave it in but recognise it is deliverable at he end of contract. Left in to acknowledged it has been looked at.

Row 7.2: suggestion to include langauge that it is being done.


Strawman section

Kurt suggest to include principles. Need to adjust and evolve over time.

Martin: DT M and remedial action are not parallel but differnt processes.

If reemdial process failes, the escalation process kicks in.

Question: whether the level of detail as in strawman is needed in this document.

If Remedial action does not resolve then next step.

Donna: let's leave in , understanding that level of detail wil be challenged.

Process to make complaints

Donna for individual cases keep information confidential


Kim: in some cases information needs to be remain confidential.


Work Plan needs to be on list


Onsite  visit of IANA facility

Is there a need to maintain.

Question how oftern does NTIA visit? Hardly

 Onsite visit is not needed



Review of reporting requirements post-transition

Second paragraph: agreed


Composition of the CSC: should match the suggestion in Overview

Keep in description to delineate diffences


CSC

Take out Travel funding out for Onsite visit.

No travel support recommended for CSC











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150323/068d9deb/attachment.html>