[DTM Escalation] Updated public comment action items summary

[Staffan Jonson]

Chuck, List
Plese find enclosed comments from me

Staffan

Från: dt6-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt6-bounces at icann.org] För Gomes, Chuck
Skickat: den 1 juni 2015 03:52
Till: DT-M (dt6 at icann.org)
Ämne: [DTM Escalation] FW: Updated public comment action items summary

Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-M.  Please review them and comment on this list before our DT-M meeting on Tuesday.

Chuck


·         CSC should escalate to the PTI Board who may ask for a review (from the IFR) or any other action (AFRALO) - DT M
CWG Response: 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. It may still be premature to make any changes and instead have as the ultimate escalation the ICANN Board.

·         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
CWG Response: 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. 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?

·         Inconsistencies between CSC and its responsibilities and the IFR (NCSG) - DT M
CWG Response: 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.

·         All deliberations and output should be transparent. CSC should not escalate to ccNSO or GNSO as these are policy bodies. (ALAC) - DT C
CWG Response: The CWG agrees that all deliberations and output should be transparent. Escalation is also being considered by DT M/C - DT M/C to provide further input on this issue.



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: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary

Dear all,

Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest.

Thanks,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150602/054efbe5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: STaffan remakrs 20150602.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19096 bytes
Desc: STaffan remakrs 20150602.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150602/054efbe5/STaffanremakrs20150602-0001.docx>