[DTC CSC] Public comment action items

[Martin Boyle]

Thanks Donna and Staffan:  a good orientation from you both.

>From Staffan's first draft, I think I would munge 206 & 209 and we can:


1.       Recognise interest in a liaison role from numbers;  but

2.       Also recognise that numbers have proposed their own process and wish to maintain independence of the two monitoring process.

That said, there is the invitation to continue communications between the two parallel tracks, so should we send our proposed final wording to the CRISP team when we send it to CWG colleagues?

I'll start on some of the others and circulate as and when they're done for comments.

Cheers

Martin

From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Staffan Jonson
Sent: 28 May 2015 14:42
To: Donna Austin; dt3 at icann.org
Cc: Paul M Kane
Subject: Re: [DTC CSC] Public comment action items

You're fast Donna

I was considering how to handle all comments and have proposal below for handling one (!) of them:
Below you find my proposed 'template' for handling a remark, and in the same time actually proposing some output.

Most text is from the Colour-coded document, but I also suggest an additional footnote to the proposal.

Cc This to Paul Kane, since he is lead of DTA: SLA/SLE.

Is this  a reasonable method? Who could take on further comments allotted to DTC? Would You coordinate Donna?  (I could e.g. do answers to Centr Board).
Is proposed answer in this specific # OK?

:)
Staffan Jonson
*Comment #209  CSC*
General Direction
CRISP is Supportive so long as independence between the Names and Numbers mechanisms is maintained.
Concern
* Customer Standing Committee
- We understand the role of the CSC is to review the service level of the Names related IANA Functions. The Numbers community has proposed a separate mechanism for service level review of the IANA Numbering Services. We observe they are independent and do not see any issues so long as this independence is maintained, but we note the possibility of communication between the groups as needed.
DT C response/action
Dear Nurani et. al. I'm writing to you re. CRISP comments to CWG Proposal re. proposed feature of a Customer Standing Committee for the IANA functions. We have not yet discussed this aspect in full CWG, but are considering it in a smaller Design Team.
We interpret your comment as a 'heads-up' on a similar and separate function proposed in the numbering community, and the potential need for further communication and maybe coordination between two similar mechanisms for service level review. We do however not see any direct challenge to the CWG proposal. Please return to us if that is not correct.
Our proposed action following your remark is to amend the CWG proposal with an additional footnote, reminding ICG that there is a need for coordination of the two functions.
*Footnote*: "CWG and CRISP proposals have each one similar function for service level review in numbers and names. There could be beneficial if ICG in final proposal will coordinate, or even merge, two such similar functions into the same organization."


Från: dt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] För Donna Austin
Skickat: den 28 maj 2015 14:38
Till: dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Ämne: [DTC CSC] Public comment action items

All

Just when you thought we were done...

I would appreciate any feedback/insight/possible response to the comments highlighted in orange which related to the CSC. The comments are on pp. 52-58, and 96 and 97.

I have not reviewed in any great detail and will have limited opportunity to do so over the next two days given the CWG calls.

Thanks

Donna

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2015 1:18 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Public comment action items

Dear All,

Per today's CWG-Stewardship meeting, please find attached an overview of the action items that were identified in the public comment review tool circulated earlier today, including colour coding to reflect the relevant design teams that are hopefully in a position to indicate a possible response, whether the comment has already been dealt with in subsequent conversations or whether it is an issue that warrants CWG consideration.

Best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150528/d1f9cc42/attachment-0001.html>