<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;}
span.E-postmall19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=SV link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Lists<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Re. Yesterdays meeting in DTM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>It was yesterday suggested to add a point 3 (appendix J, p 74) allowing also for the PTI board to initiate a SIFR. </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I was presented this proposal for change of text ‘a vista’, in sitting meeting. Since I saw no immediate issues with it I agreed hesitatingly (hesitation was also confirmed by Chuck) . <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In Marikas summary this was formulated as:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>”…</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> the DT M agrees that the PTI Board should be able to submit a request to the ICANN Board to initiate a SIFR.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Having considered overnight, and listening into whole DT C, I suggest a step back, *not* going further with changes already made before yesterdays meeting. My proposal is therefore to strike out point 3 from yesterdays alteration (and any consequent changes in other parts of the text).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Reason for suggesting this:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Even though I support many parallel options of raising concern and even escalation in community, what I didn’t see immediately was the secondary effect that this proposal risk to fundamentally change the balance between ICANN board and PTI board. It is agreed in CWG that the PTI board should be minimalistic and have limited responsibility. The ability for PTI board to escalate at SIFR will skew this relation, and make accountability and responsibility hard to follow. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Since we cat CWG meeting also opened up for growing the PTI board (at the boards own discretion) there is was to achieve some Liason role and communications by other means. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I hope we can resolve this during Wednesday, before CWG thursday.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Staffan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>staffan.jonson@iis.se<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> +46 73 317 39 67<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Från:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> dt6-bounces@icann.org [mailto:dt6-bounces@icann.org] <b>För </b>Marika Konings<br><b>Skickat:</b> den 2 juni 2015 19:40<br><b>Till:</b> DT-M (dt6@icann.org)<br><b>Ämne:</b> [DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear All, </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Please find below the notes from today’s DT-M meeting. Based on those discussions, the proposed responses to the DT M related comments are as follows:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:18.15pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt'><u><span style='color:black'>CSC should escalate to the PTI Board</span></u><span style='color:black'> who may ask for a review (from the IFR) or any other action (AFRALO) <i>– DT M</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DT M agrees that the CSC should have the ability to escalate to the PTI Board as a step prior to escalation to the ccNSO/GNSO and has updated the IANA problem resolution process accordingly. Furthermore, the DT M agrees that the PTI Board should be able to submit a request to the ICANN Board to initiate a SIFR. The ICANN Board is expected to consider such a request making use of the customary community consultation mechanisms. As such, DT M suggests that DT N/SR updates the separation process accordingly and notes that a reference to this possibility should also be included in the IANA problem resolution process. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:18.15pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Escalation by CSC to GNSO and ccNSO is adding a layer of escalation that may not be necessary. CSC could call for SIFR instead. (Centre for Democracy & Technology) – DT M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. Escalation to IFR was considered beyond the scope of the CSC, instead as any issues raised would relate directly to the technical performance of IANA, ccNSO and GNSO were considered to have direct access to broader community input on this issue and would be in a position to make an assessment on appropriate next steps. The GNSO and ccNSO step is an approval step with multi-stakeholder involvement, not an escalation mechanism as such. Having only the CSC initiate an SIFR may not be appropriate considering its limited remit and size.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:18.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Question from intensive working sessions: Should CWG consider whether GNSO should be changed to RySG – ccNSO and RySG would consider whether it should be escalated to a multi-stakeholder process to determine next steps?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DT M proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organization organizations are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholder into separate SGs and Constituencies. The ccNSO is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:18.15pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Inconsistencies between CSC and its responsibilities and the IFR (NCSG)<i> – DT M</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.15pt'><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.15pt'><b><span style='color:black'>CWG Response:</span></b><span style='color:black'> The CSC charter was largely done prior to the discussions on the PTI Board, as such escalation to the GNSO and ccNSO was the chosen escalation path at the time. As a result, there may be inconsistencies between CSC and IFR escalation mechanisms. The aim is to address these in the next iteration of the proposal. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.15pt'><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:18.15pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt'><span style='color:black'>All deliberations and output should be transparent. CSC should not escalate to ccNSO or GNSO as these are policy bodies. (ALAC)<i> – DT C</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DT M understands the concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. Furthermore, DT M notes that GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation of adopted GNSO policies, and as such can raise alarms and request a SIFR. Also, DT M observes that the GNSO is about more than only policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Please provide your input <b><u>by COB today (Tuesday 2 June)</u></b> so that the responses can be shared with the CWG tomorrow.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Thanks,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Marika</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>Notes DT M meeting – 2 June 2015</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Footnote 36 - consider timing of this work. DT to review section 4 (implementation considerations) to determine whether any updates could/should be made there to reflect work that is needed in relation to mediation options. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DT M / DT C to co-ordinate where input regarding punch list items #21 - 23 - where will the agreed approach be incorporated? ccNSO & GNSO to undertake further work on this issue - might be another implementation item to be included in section 4.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DT M to consider whether esclation in problem management in step 4 should be to ccNSO/GNSO or ccNSO/RySG.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Escalation to PTI Board can be a useful step as it could result in correction of issue, even if changes are small that PTI Board is able to correct the issue if it has not been addressed before by PTI staff. If issue is not addressed by PTI Board, issue would be escalated to ccNSO/GNSO. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Should PTI Board be able to ask for review by SIFR? PTI Board could request SIFR and submit this request to the ICANN Board. ICANN Board with community input could then make a decision on whether or not an SIFR is initiated. PTI Board should not be making such a request to the CSC. DT N/SR/X to consider this update as part of the separation process annex. DT M also consider making reference to this in the section (for example as a footnote) on escalation mechanisms, following CWG agreement on including this. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>DTM proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organization organization are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholder into separate SGs and Constituencies.In the ccNSO the is a local stakeholder organization so that according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>In response to ALAC comment: DT M understands concern but practical considerations of using existing structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. DT M also notes that GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation the policis made, and can raise alarms and request a SIFR; 2. GNSO is about more than policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>