<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 12 (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:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
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;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Stephanie,<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">I don’t think so, but I’m not sure collectively we have made the point about limiting PTI Board responsibilities.<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">But I fully agree that the PTI Board has a minimalistic role. For the CSC, the PTI Board is essentially an opportunity we have to push for improvements as we look for remedial action. If there
is no action, then the CSC could discuss with the ICANN Board. We agreed in thinking about the CSC that the key role was to promote remedial (cooperative) action and the PTI Board is a key part of that. That’s clearly a PTI Board role as keeping IANA operations
running smoothly.<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"><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">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Duchesneau, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 03 June 2015 03:19<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; Staffan Jonson; dt3@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DTC CSC] FW: [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>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">I am of the camp that the PTI board role should be kept minimalist which this seems to get in the way of. Has the CWG moved against keeping the board responsibilities to what would be required
of a PBC and necessary to keep IANA operations running smoothly?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Why is this information not being rolled out to the customers to determine whether IFR is warranted by and through ccNSO and GNSO (or RySG)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">Stephanie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#262626">Stephanie Duchesneau</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#3366FF"> </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">Neustar, Inc. / </span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7D7D7D">Public Policy Manager<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4<sup>th</sup> Floor, Washington, DC 20006</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">Office:</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333"> </span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2623 </span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">Mobile: </span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7D7D7D">+1.703.731.2040</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"> </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#000066"> </span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">Fax: </span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#7D7D7D">+1.202.533.2623</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"> </span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">/</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658"> </span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><a href="http://www.neustar.biz/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#068658">www.neustar.biz</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">
</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 3:02 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Staffan Jonson <<a href="mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se">staffan.jonson@iis.se</a>>, "<a href="mailto:dt3@icann.org">dt3@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:dt3@icann.org">dt3@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [DTC CSC] FW: [DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">DT-C was always clear – that we enter remedial action with the PTI Board as (just about) the last step. I think CSC (as under ICANN) escalates to the ICANN Board. We are then telling the ICANN
Board that it needs to sort its subsidiary out.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">The DT-M group seems to me to be confusing who has the role with whom. I’m finding this proposal very confusing in lines of accountability and responsibility.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Martin</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black">
<a href="mailto:dt3-bounces@icann.org">dt3-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:dt3-bounces@icann.org">mailto:dt3-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Staffan Jonson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 02 June 2015 19:53<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dt3@icann.org">dt3@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DTC CSC] FW: [DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Below for information<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Staffan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:staffan.jonson@iis.se">staffan.jonson@iis.se</a></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:black"> +46 73 317 39 67</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Från: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Datum: </b>tisdag 2 juni 2015 19:39<br>
<b>Till: </b>"DT-M (<a href="mailto:dt6@icann.org">dt6@icann.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:dt6@icann.org">dt6@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Ämne: </b>[DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear All, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:18.15pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><u><span lang="SV" style="color:black">CSC should escalate to the PTI Board</span></u><span lang="SV" style="color:black"> who may ask for a review (from the IFR) or any other action
(AFRALO) <i>– DT M</i></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:18.15pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span lang="SV" 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</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span lang="SV" 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?</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:18.15pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span lang="SV" style="color:black">Inconsistencies between CSC and its responsibilities and the IFR (NCSG)<i> – DT M</i></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.15pt"><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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.15pt"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:18.15pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><span lang="SV" 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></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Marika<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black">Notes DT M meeting – 2 June 2015</span></i><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>