[DTM Escalation] DT-N Notes from 23 March 2015 Call

[Berry Cobb]

Attendance:

Chuck Gomes, Staffan Jonson

Marika Konings, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer

 

Actions:

.         ACTION (Staff): In the few ccTLD agreements with ICANN - Check to
see if there are provisions about updating root zone and/or interaction with
IANA

 

 

23 March 2015 Notes:

.         Good start to DT-M structure to share with larger team; leave
Istanbul prepared to complete overall deliverable

.         IANA escalation email can be used by anyone; channel used very
little

.         Review of Use-Cases; incorrect address could be Compliance
enforcement; other use cases; could be redirected to IANA

.         Nothing formal in place regarding escalation external to IANA,
with the exception of the Ombudsman as listed on iana.org

.         Question: how does Compliance connect to IANA, or vice-versa?

.         ICANN Contractual Compliance only enforces contracts for which
they are a party two, only gTLDs.  non-IANA issues for ccTLD registry issues
likely addressed at local level (confirmed by Staffan on ccTLDs, especially
those that pre-date ICANN)

.         ACTION: In the few ccTLD agreements with ICANN - Check to see if
there are provisions about updating root zone and/or interaction with IANA

.         Question: Should DT-M connect with DT-B?

.         gTLDs - ICANN Contractual Compliance is most likely route for
gTLDs

.         In case of emergency, can anyone in the community use the
Emergency Number? Marika, understanding # is only for direct customers, but
if something is flagged as a real emergency, likely not to ignore it.  Is
there a means of validation of Direct Customers?  Call is routed to whomever
is on-call.  IANA staff likely will know who they are speaking to.

.         Incident Mgmt (individual Ry Issue) - should the scope of
complainant be expanded?  Others with relevant issues?  Separation of
function similar to CSC/MRT; should be aligned to narrowly defined
interests.  Update to draft to allow for channel of non-IANA related issues.

.         DT-C recording: emphasized the process that Kurt Pritz suggested.
Described more of an internal to IANA then to ICANN escalation path.  Should
those steps be listed in DT-M draft?  The internal escalation approach works
up until a need for separation or if IANA were separated from ICANN
structurally and not purely internal solution.  Some ccTLDs may have issue
with internal escalation, leading up to ICANN Board.  Separate escalation
from gTLDs and ccTLDs; likely not include ICANN Mgmt as part of overall
Escalation path.  DT-C does not see CSC going beyond operational/technical
issues.

.         Entry points into ICANN 1) IANA email  2)ICANN Customer Svc
(phone, email)  3) Contractual Compliance

.         Escalation to Ombudsman - should have discretion to mediate and
ensure right path of escalation, for example CSC or IAP; optional route to
Ombudsman for ccTLDs directly to CSC.  Basic process can be transferred in
case of separation

.         Step 7 - IAP - reaching limitation to the unknowns in overall
proposal. Will an MRT be included? Is IFM been defined outside DT-M?

.         Yet to know outcome of CSC - DT-C regarding liaisons, etc.

.         Some issue relating to IANA could be beyond the CSC, such as a new
RFP from IETF.

.         Append Use Cases as appendix to DT-M draft or provide headline
statement for issues to assess how they are dealt with that may not traverse
the IANA entry.

.         Problem Mgmt - understanding the types of failures to be resolved
at this level.

.         Preface - DT-N still WIP giving other parts of proposal yet to be
determined.

 

Berry A. Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers

720.839.5735

mail at berrycobb.com

@berrycobb

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150323/9d46678d/attachment.html>