[DTM Escalation] For your review - final version & transmittal message

Fri Apr 10 15:53:46 UTC 2015

In the document where the graphic comes from RZM is defined as Root Zone Management (see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf).

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Friday 10 April 2015 17:06
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: RE: [DTM Escalation] For your review - final version & transmittal message

Thank you very much Marika.  It’s a fairly trivial issue but should  it be Root Zone Manager instead of Root Zone Management in footnote 3?

Chuck

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 10:53 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] For your review - final version & transmittal message

Thanks, Chuck, I’ve made the updates as suggested (see attached).

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Friday 10 April 2015 15:50
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: RE: [DTM Escalation] For your review - final version & transmittal message

Thank you very much for sending this out so quickly after our DT-M meeting today.  I want to let those who were unable to attend the meeting that there were only three of us on the call, Marika, Avri & I so we want to make sure that everyone on DT-M have the opportunity to review and comment on the decisions we made while at the same time realizing that we have to deliver our recommendations today (hence the 17:00 UTC deadline for comments.)  Please send any comments you have to our DT-M list so that all of us can see them and respond if we so desire.  Note though that any responses will be needed by the 17:00 UTC deadline.

My personal feedback follows.

With regard to the RZM acronym, I suggest that we define it either in the legend for the flow chart in Annex X, i.e., RZM = Root Zone Manager, or just before the flowchart.  Also, am I correct that Root Zone Manager and IANA Functions Operator (IFO) are synonymous?  If so should we add a footnote stating this?

In Annex Y, I wonder if we should rename ‘Step 1’ and ‘Step 2’ as ‘Phase 1’ and ‘Phase 2’ or something similar because each of them include multiple steps.  That way, we could refer to steps within each phase; for example we could refer to Phase 1, Step b, or Phase 2, Step c.  I should have thought of this earlier.  Regardless, this is not a critical issue so I am okay if we leave it as is.

Also in Annex Y, I suggest changing footnote 5 as follows: “If this is approved by the CWG, it would likely require further implementation work that would need to be done after approval of this step in the process and before the transition occurs.”

In Annex Z, I think that step 6 is covered by step 7 so I would delete it.

I like the transmittal message.

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: Friday, April 10, 2015 9:21 AM
To: DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)
Subject: [DTM Escalation] For your review - final version & transmittal message

Dear All,

Following today’s DT-M meeting, please find below the proposed transmittal message to the CWG as well as the latest version of the recommendations (note that it is still in redline format for your convenience – these will be removed prior to submission).

If you have any comments or edits, please share these today by 17.00 UTC at the latest.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Marika

=====

Dear All,

On behalf of DT-M, please find attached the proposed recommendations in relation to escalation mechanisms. Based on the input provided by DT C, DT M made a number of adjustments to accommodate the concerns that had been expressed concerning the possible expansion of the mandate for the CSC. DT M is of the view, however, that the CSC has a role in escalation – if it would not be the CSC, who or what else would fulfil this role? Also, DT M would like to emphasise that based on the input that has been provided by IANA, the customer service complaint resolution process is currently available to anyone that wishes to submit a complaint, but it is only used sporadically. There is no reason to believe this would suddenly change following the transition. As such DT M is recommending that to a large extent the existing approach and processes are followed, but with the option for direct customers to escalate to the CSC if the issue is not resolved adequately by IANA.

DT M looks forward to receiving the feedback from the CWG and discussing this further during our upcoming meetings on Monday and Tuesday.

Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150410/6970bfb7/attachment.html>