[DTM Escalation] For your review - DT M Punch List

Mon May 25 15:44:06 UTC 2015

Not having seen any further comments, I’ve updated the punch list with the edits as suggested by Chuck (see attached).

Chuck, do you want to go ahead and submit this to the CWG for review ahead of the next meeting?

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Friday 22 May 2015 16:35
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: For your review - DT M Punch List

Thank you very much Marika.  Here are my suggestions.

Item 21
I suggest rewording the first sentence of DT-M comments from “DTM sees three possible avenues for IRP usage: individual TLDs, GNSO/ccNSO, RySG (in cases of systemic issues, not individual registry cases).” To something like this: “DTM proposes that the following should be eligible for using the IRP: individual gTLD registries, the GNSO or ccNSO or the two SOs collectively, and the RySG (in cases of systemic issues, not individual registry cases)”.  We might also want to insert a note that the eligibility of ccTLD registries to use the IRP is dependent on the ccTLD community work that is anticipated in this regard.  The rest of the DT-M comments seem okay to me.

Item 22
I suggest rewording the second paragraph as follows: “DT-M agrees with the approach proposed by DT-C: TheRemedial ActionProcedures shouldcontain athreshold ofwhat isregarded persistentor systemicproblems;for exampleif reportsreveal thatan SLAhas notbeenmet for6 continuousmonths thiswould beconsidered apersistent performanceissue; however,it shouldbe recognizedthat theCSC shouldhave thediscretion todetermine whetherthis isa trivialor seriousmatter, andagree on a courseof actionappropriate tothe circumstances.”

Item 23
I suggest deleting the first sentence: “Itappears thatthis questionrelates toa) andc) andas suchis outsidethe remitof theCSC.”  I don’t think it adds much if any value.

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: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:02 AM
To: Marika Konings; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)
Subject: [DTM Escalation] For your review - DT M Punch List

Dear All,

Not having seen any further comments, I’ve taken a stab at filling in the DT M responses for items 21-23 (see attached). Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list as soon as possible. Based on your feedback it will be decided whether a further call is needed.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday 19 May 2015 23:01
To: "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>)" <dt6 at icann.org<mailto:dt6 at icann.org>>
Subject: [DTM Escalation] For your review - notes from today's meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from today’s DT M meeting. Please share with the list if you have any comments / edits in relation to these notes and the DT M discussion by end of day (wherever you are) on Wednesday 20 May. Following that staff will incorporate the relevant parts into the punch list which will be circulated for review to DT M for review on Thursday. Depending on the feedback received on Thursday, it will be decided whether a further call is needed or not.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes 19/5

  *   See also comments circulated by Staffan on 13/5
  *   No disagreement in relation to item 11
  *   No disagreement in relation to item 12
  *   No disagreement in relation to item 13
  *   In relation to comment 14, in selecting liaisons, ccNSO/GNSO may want to factor in technical expertise. Separation CWG (SCWG) would also include a CSC liaison (new item 14a?) who would in addition to technical skills should also have RFP expertise.
  *   Item 15 - second sentence could say PTI 'staff" with the qualifier that it should be with the director / leadership of PTI or their designee..
  *   Item 16 - should leadership of ccNSO and GNSO be engaged on this topic to give them a heads-up that additional work may be required (ideally before finalisation of proposal)?
  *   Item 21 - in the case of the GNSO, individual registry operators that are impacted by a delegation / redelegation decision should be individually able to start an IRP in the view of the RySG. Should this also be an option for the GNSO and/or the RySG? It may not be practical for the GNSO / RySG to do so? Other option would be to call for an IANA Function Review. IRP only works if there has been a decision, if there is another issue, an IRP would not apply. According to DT M, there could possibly be three avenues for IRP usage: individual TLDs, GNSO/ccNSO, RySG (in cases of systemic issues, not individual registry cases). Unresolved issues, if it is decided that they need to be escalated, these could be escalated to the IFRT. Would a direct dialogue with the IFO also be an option? First step could be for ccNSO/GNSO to request IFO to provide explanation as well as agrieved party (if further information would be needed) so that information from all affected parties is available before next steps are decided upon (mediation?). Staffan to check as DT C may have something similar in its documentation. If the issue is not resolved, and it is agreed that escalation is needed, IFRT would be invoked. Escalation does not necessarily require an issue that is relevant / of impact to both SOs, but for escalation of performancie issue / systematic problem to IFRT support from both SOs is needed. In summary, step 1) issue could be raised to one of the SOs who could do fact finding and try to mitigate, 2) could also recommend an IRP, 3) both SOs agree on escalation on IFR,
  *   Item 22 - consider going with DT C recommendation (leave it up to CSC)
  *   Item 23 - not DT M role to design mediation, but is this something that staff could assist with (not necessary for final recommendations, but could recommend that work needs to be commenced on mediation services and explore / decide what the options are). Registry agreements could be a possible model (Marika to check what experience exists with regards to mediation services).
Escalation flow charts

  *   Add on page 1, add to 'decision to escalate to phase 2' that it is only accessible for direct customers
  *   If complainant does not decide to escalate to phase 2, the process ends. Does not preclude individual registry operator to initiate IRP or other avenues available (include footnote similar as in the document)
  *   Both parties must have the ability to escalate. Consider adding a footnote that also notes that IFO and ombudsman could also escalate.
  *   What happens if issue is not resolved and it is not a direct customer? Indirect customer always has the ombudsman as a vehicle as well as through liaisons in CSC.
  *   Update on phase 2 that IFO and Ombudsman could also initiate phase 2.
  *   Move decision box down underneath CSC and clarify there that it can be escalated to phase 2 by IFO, complainant or ombudsman.
  *   DT/CWG to consider where to include the flow charts.
  *   Page 2 - Update title, update first box to read complainant / IFO / Ombudsman, add to 'baseball home plate' see next page.
  *   Page 3 - add decision box for 'if satisfactory' and 'if unsatisfactory'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150525/1bb6c833/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWGPunchList DT-C - DT-M 0.4.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 47327 bytes
Desc: CWGPunchList DT-C - DT-M 0.4.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150525/1bb6c833/CWGPunchListDT-C-DT-M0.4-0001.docx>