[DTM Escalation] Comments before Monday meeting

[Gomes, Chuck]

That is my understanding as well:  1930 UTC.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: dt6-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt6-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Grace Abuhamad; Staffan Jonson; dt6 at icann.org
Cc: Brenda Brewer
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] Comments before Monday meeting

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
>>
>