[DTM Escalation] Comments before Monday meeting

[Grace Abuhamad]

Hi all, 

I don¹t see the meeting scheduled for Monday. Has the meeting been
confirmed or was there a reason it was not scheduled? If confirmed, we
(staff) will get this set up ASAP.

Best, 
Grace

On 5/13/15, 8:58 AM, "Staffan Jonson" <staffan.jonson at iis.se> wrote:

>All
>We missed both Avri and Chuck at meeting today, so we decided to postpone
>meeting till Monday 18/5 rundabout similar time
>
>Proposed agenda for the meeting was:
>1. Walk through input (Punchlist) from DT C
>2. Walk through of escalation flow charts
>3. AOB
>
>In order to speed things up I'm happy to give my input on the Punch list
>items, since it (hopefully) is uncontroversial
>
>*1. Walk through input (Punchlist) from DT C*
>Punchlist from DTC:
>I'm also engaged in DT-C and is happy with comments submitted by Chuck
>(From Donna and DT C)
>
>In punch-list 11-16: CSC design: we committed in DT C not to overregulate
>the CSC. 
>Discussion revolved around giving the CSC the discretion to handle e.g.
>punch list item no 15:
>To agree inbetween CSC and PTI how procedures or remedial actions will be
>developed post transition (and not before transition)
>
> In punch list item 16:
> It is noted that  CSC can escalate complaints to ccNSO and GNSO, which
>may then decide to take further action "using agreed consultation and
>escalation  processes."
>DT C response:
>For ccNSO and GNSO respectively, it is up to their own discretion to
>formulate internal processes/procedures for escalation. DT C response
>indicate that such internal processes can be developed post transition
>(i.e.) not urgent, and that own initiatives for alternative routes to
>remedies may appear (e.g. direct contact with ICANN board).
>
>
>Sidley punchlist item no 21 relate to what happens if ccNSO/GNSO decide
>to escalate unresolved issues. To What function/organization would that
>escalation happen?
>DT C answer here is that it is dependent on escalation procedures
>developed in ccNSO/GNSO, which is post transition).
>This item has been hanging lossely in process for some while now.
>My personal view is that the DT C answer is good enough. What about You?
>Are there issues or concern re. item 21 in the punch list, or proposed
>answer to it?
>
>In punch list item 22: DT C also relates to process that can be developed
>post transition. 
>Any concern for this? I'm happy with the proposed solution.
>
>As noted in the CSC answer and also noted by Paul Kane in the list, there
>are demands from several actors in cc community that escalation also need
>to be specified with consice timeframes for remedials. This specification
>of service expectations go further than the two dys mentioned by Marika
>in the list. 
>
>Punch list item 23: Maybe this one need some discussion during next
>meting Monday?
>
>*2. Walk through of escalation flow charts*
>Escalation flow charts sent by Marika are a key improvement for
>understanding the processes (such charts have already been demanded by cc
>community members).
>
>
>I hope these remarks help for Monday meeting.
> 
>
>:)
>Staffan
>
>staffan.jonson at iis.se
> +46 73 317 39 67
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWGPunchList DT-C 0.2[2].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 22129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150517/9adeb3c2/CWGPunchListDT-C0.22-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150517/9adeb3c2/smime-0001.p7s>