[DTC CSC] CWG PunchList DT-C 0.2

[Martin Boyle]

Thanks for this, Donna:  it generally looks right to me and you do seem to have captured the points that I was concerned about.

I realise my voice was perhaps in the minority on Q14, so I am grateful to you and colleagues for your patience on this and for the final wording.  I'd see the word "preference" as very important (it is a clear expectation:  given the (probably) majority voice of liaisons in any vote, it is conceivable that the views of the CSC will be seen in the light of interests other than the performance of the IANA functions operator).

Thank you also for addressing my concern on Q22 - as I said on the call, arbitrary dates for remedial action are not really a good basis for setting triggers and I still do not see it as a good idea.  That said, though, the wording is generally ok because it leaves the discretion to the CSC on how important the issue and how it will be addressed.  However, let's bear in mind that some issues can take significant time to resolve (and the occasional ccTLD revocation or delegation case can take a seriously long time quite simply because they are difficult - I think we all prefer a slow careful process to one that meets SLAs but that leaves a mess behind!) and so SLAs become meaningless and the (arbitrary) six month deadline could be exceeded for quite justifiable reasons.

And that brings me on to my main concern which does not need to be addressed in this document, but I think we should pay account to it in our use of language.

During our call there were suggestions that we needed to avoid suspicion of the CSC having too cosy a relationship with the PTI.  The use of the word "cosy" (quite a pejorative term) seriously concerns me, especially as the relationship between the CSC and the PTI will be the relationship between the customer and its supplier.  We are looking to ensuring the provision of a good service - performance (speed and accuracy) and in line with policy (the PTI not trying to force its own ideas in contradiction to established or accepted policy or the absence of clear policy).  The objective of the CSC has to be to ensure that goal.  As we've already agreed, we need to base working on remedial action and in part this is all about building a good customer-supplier relationship.

I do not understand why we would think that the CSC registries would seek to ignore significant issues (which seems to be the underlying assumption).  If it did, wouldn't the registry base (led by the ccNSO and RySG, but certainly also hearing complaints from other registries) be unwilling to leave this ride?

So I would be grateful if we could avoid the use of terms like "cosy relationship," which implies collusion to benefit insiders, in favour of words related to constructive and cooperative relationships focussed on ensuring a good overall service for all customers.

Thanks

Martin





From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin
Sent: 09 May 2015 00:41
To: dt3 at icann.org
Subject: [DTC CSC] CWG PunchList DT-C 0.2

Hi All

I've provided comments based on our conversation earlier today.

O11. This is a little different to what we discussed, but when I reviewed the procedure this approach seems to make the most sense. The wording may be a little clumsy.

Q17. We had quite a bit of discussion on this, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to provide any comments here; however, I'm happy to include if others see value.

Let me know what you think and if we have differences of opinion, let's try to get them resolved on Monday so we can provide feedback to the CWG in time for the call on Tuesday.

Thanks again everyone.

Donna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150511/11c7e46f/attachment.html>