[DTM Escalation] Comments before Monday meeting

[Grace Abuhamad]

I’ve been informed that the meeting is scheduled for Tuesday. Please
ignore my previous email, and apologies if I have caused any confusion.

Best, 
Grace

On 5/17/15, 3:56 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:

>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: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150517/571aaf5f/smime.p7s>