[DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses

[Donna Austin]

Chuck, all

I will not be in a position to do this today. I will do so tomorrow hopefully before noon PDT, along with other work relating to DT-C.

Thanks

Donna

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 5:06 PM
To: Marika Konings; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org)
Cc: Donna Austin
Subject: RE: For your review - proposed public comment responses
Importance: High

The notes look fine to me with edits noted below.  Note that Staffan served as an informal DT-C liaison to DT-M so we believe that the DT-M recommendations are consistent with the recommendations of DT-C.  Just to be sure though, I have cc'd Donna as the other co-chair of DT-C.

Donna - If you have any concerns, please communicate them as soon as possible.  Time constraints made it very difficult to arrange a joint DT-C/DT-M call after DT-M finished its deliberations.

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: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:40 PM
To: DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)
Subject: [DTM Escalation] For your review - proposed public comment responses

Dear All,

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:


CSC should escalate to the PTI Board who may ask for a review (from the IFR) or any other action (AFRALO) - DT M

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.


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

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.


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?

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 stakeholders 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.


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. We believe these have been The aim is to addressed these in the next iteration of the proposal.


All deliberations and output should be transparent. CSC should not escalate to ccNSO or GNSO as these are policy bodies. (ALAC) - DT C

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.

Please provide your input by COB today (Tuesday 2 June) so that the responses can be shared with the CWG tomorrow.

Thanks,

Marika

Notes DT M meeting - 2 June 2015

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.

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.

DT M to consider whether esclation in problem management in step 4 should be to ccNSO/GNSO or ccNSO/RySG.

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.

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.

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.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150603/9434a99b/attachment-0001.html>