[DTM Escalation] Updated version for your review

[Staffan Jonson]

Maybe I should elaborate on the same issue:


In DT C We consider if we would suggest: "The CSC may receive complaints from registry operators regarding IANA performance and can act as an intermediary in an attempt to resolve complaints."

And for sure the CSC should be aware of individual complaints. But it would maybe be reaching too far to expect a role for the CSC in dispute resolution.


If we allow the CSC to receive complaints they will have to become decision makers. In terms of remedies or enforcement, it is maybe not a good idea to let the CSC become embroiled in such disagreements. This is maybe particularly the case when you consider that you would have registry operators involved in disputes between IANA and other registry operators.

I hope this give some furter insight in the view.

Staffan

staffan.jonson at iis.se
 +46 73 317 39 67

Från: Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>>
Datum: torsdag 9 april 2015 21:15
Till: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Ämne: Re: [DTM Escalation] Updated version for your review

All

Apologies for taking time for this. DT C had a meeting Wednesday regarding coming proposal. We had due to lack of time a very short discussion on proposed escalation process as described by me in previous papers.Because of our short discussion I had to go yet another turn to the group.


My take-back from DT C (which now also is confirmed with the others) is that there are some issues with the proposal presented by DT M, e.g.

*Initial text*
- Initial language giving 'Anyone' standing to initiate complaints according to Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process was not considered consistent with expectations formulated in DT C - CSC. According to DT C proposal, CSC should be kept a minimal organization (maybe only five members). Giving Anyone standing to open complaints might risk overburdening the CSC functions, and thus malfunction.

*Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process* (according to Annex Y, Step 2)
- Another issue is the idea of having CSC acting as mediator. According to DT C proposal, CSC should be kept a minimal organization (maybe only five members). The role as mediator would thereby not fit into this minimalistic approach.

- A third issue is how a potential mediator role in CSC would be appointed, by who, and by what rules?


My conclusion is that we will not have time for developing a consensus on this between DT:s before Monday, so I suggest we leave text with brackets/placeholders for different views.

--
:)
Staffan

staffan.jonson at iis.se<mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>
 +46 73 317 39 67

Från: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Datum: torsdag 9 april 2015 19:50
Till: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Ämne: Re: [DTM Escalation] Updated version for your review

Staffan,

Are you going to provide feedback from DT-C as promised?  It would really be helpful to get that today.

Chuck

From:dt6-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt6-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt6-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 10:16 AM
To: Marika Konings; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] Updated version for your review

Reminder – please provide your input on the questions below as well as any further edits / comments on the latest version of the template (see attached). Note that I’ve added a couple of suggestions I received from IANA colleagues with regards to a possible new term to identify the Root Zone Maintainer, to avoid confusion with Root Zone Management, as well as removing ICANN or IANA Function’s Operator prior to ‘Ombudsman’ to make the term more neutral.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 17:46
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Subject: Updated version for your review

Dear All,

Following our meeting earlier today, please find attached the updated content template that incorporates in redline the changes discussed. Note, that I’ve added a question in relation to step 6 of the problem management process (apologies for not spotting it earlier so it could have been raised during the call). Please share any further comments and/or proposed edits with the list. Also note the items below for which specific input has been request prior to Friday’s meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 15:34
To: "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Subject: [DTM Escalation] Notes & action items from today's meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items from today’s DT M meeting. We want to draw particular attention to the following items for which we would like to encourage your feedback on the mailing list prior to the next meeting which has been scheduled for Friday 10 April at 12.00 UTC:

Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes.

Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process

Please look out for a revised version of the content template shortly.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes 7 April DT M

 *   Consider adding a paragraph that explains what has been updated / changed compared to existing procedures instead of showing changes line by line.
Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone Maintainer.

 *   Legal redress via court should remain an option - that is always an option, not precluded by these procedures. Does this need to be made explicit? Possible footnote on other legal remedies that may be pursued?
 *   All of the escalation procedures should have timeframes associated with them and automatically moves to the next step if not resolved within the timeframe indicated. This is intended to be able to identify how long a certain task would take. It may be difficult as it may depend on when the request is made and issue at hand. Consider including indicative timelines? Already addressed on page 6 ('what is the expected time line') so no further action needed.
Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue applicable legal recourses that may be available.

 *   Keep ombudsman option optional
3. a. Discuss Stephan's input

 *   Currently IANA team allows anyone to send in complaint - proposed changes would make it more narrow. However, it may be inconsistent with DT-C if it is not limited to direct customers? consider making step 2 of customer service complaint resolution process only available to direct customers should it indeed be an issue? Issues could potentially be raised by non-customers via liaisons in CSC or ombudsman for step 2?
Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would make it imcompatible with DT-C approach

Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC

Action item (staff): accept other edits made

3. b. Implementation Paper

 *   Circulated to ensure consistency with DT M work (is intended to be part of DT C work)
 *   Reference to 30 days may need to be updated as it has been taken out from DT M work
4. Annex Z
a.       Adding CCWG accountability steps such as spilling the Board and/or separating the IANA functions from ICANN?
b.      Adding triggers for escalation steps where needed?
c.       Including a step for initiating an RFP?

 *   Is format / approach with regard to RFP in scope for DT M? May not be feasible in any case before upcoming deadline.
 *   Are there any triggers that need to be added? Triggers are in the process itself - customer will look for resolution until 'ticket' is closed. May not need further triggers?
Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved, the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes)

Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes.

5.       Discuss remaining  two questions from the DT-M scoping document:
c)What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) have in escalating IANA naming services problems?
As all others should have standing to raise issues. However, should these groups have standing for step 2 or should they follow non-direct customer path.

Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint.

f)What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA name services issues?

Can use complaint process. Should also have access to Problem Management Escalation Process?

Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process

Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to Friday's meeting

Next meeting DT M: 12:00-13:30 UTC | 10 April
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150409/a5aac991/attachment-0001.html>