[DTC CSC] Public comment action items

[Martin Boyle]

212:

This is mainly uncontroversial:

a.       It supports the CSC role & composition.

b.      It calls for clarity on the independence of the CSC from ICANN pressure, without giving any specific organisational model.  [I think there is a misprint in this text - it says the opposite of what it means!]

Comment:  We have not yet defined where the CSC would sit in the organisational framework - I think it could be a committee in ICANN but flagged as independent:  this makes it easier to have it visible to the rest of the community (and escalation is through the ccNSO & GNSO, so this makes sense).  I'm not particularly keen on it being in PTI, but it could be funded by PTI, keeping it a little at arm's length from ICANN.

c.       It also wants any GAC liaison not to be from the same entity as a government-operated TLD.
Comment:  I'm not sure how this could be enforced.  We could suggest that GAC do not chose someone from a government-run registry, but the choice is the GAC's and surely we should welcome informed liaisons.

Response:
I'd suggest we say something like, "We still need to finalise the proposal on how best to ensure independence of the CSC from the ICANN and PTI Boards, while keeping the CSC closely working with the registry communities and the wider community, as well as developing a cooperative relationship with the PTI.

"For liaisons, we believe that the nominating organisation has the right to select its own liaison.  We could recommend that nominees are not drawn from the registry community, but we could see significant advantage if liaisons were well acquainted with registry-IANA interaction.  We would also note that specifically targeting nominees from a government-operated TLD is a little difficult to justify:  many governments have very close relations with their ccTLD and some even have directors or advisors on their independent registry board."

I'd also note that we know the .nz registry and could discuss the comments with them.

Comments?

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/f3b66334/attachment-0001.html>