[DTM Escalation] DOODLE POLL: DT-M Action Items from CWG Public Comments Review Tool

Fri May 29 12:58:21 UTC 2015

Hi all,

Please see the doodle poll link to select your availability for a DT-M meeting early next week;
<http://doodle.com/mz63kutc3a2d2aax> http://doodle.com/mz63kutc3a2d2aax

Remember to change the time zone to your location.  I ask that you respond as soon as possible so
the call can be setup for early next week and get on your calendars.  Thank you so much!

Kind regards,

Brenda

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:31 AM
To: Staffan Jonson; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org)
Cc: Brenda Brewer
Subject: RE: [DTM Escalation] DT-M Action Items from CWG Public Comments Review Tool

Except for some exchanges between Staffan and I, there has been no other list discussion.  I was
hoping we could reach some consensus without scheduling a call.  I realize that all of us have been
involved in the intensive calls today and yesterday and that has limited our ability to focus on
DT-M issues.  At the same time, we need to reach some conclusions by next Wednesday at the latest so
I am going to ask Brenda to do a Doodle Poll for a possible DT-M call for Monday or Tuesday next
week. Leaving Wednesday for joint work with DT-C.

Brenda:  I am available at the following times:

Monday, 1 June

*       1300-1400 UTC

*       1500-1700 UTC

*       1800 UTC and after

Tuesday, 2 June

*       1500-1700 UTC

*       1900 UTC & after

Chuck

From: Staffan Jonson [mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:53 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-M (dt6 at icann.org <mailto:dt6 at icann.org> )
Subject: Re: [DTM Escalation] DT-M Action Items from CWG Public Comments Review Tool

Chuck 

I like your method and approach to propose a solution to this concern. This is taking things
forward. 

(I actually found myself doing something similar in DTC;-).

Just some thoughts on taking the process further:

When/If consensus is reached within and in-between DT:s, how should proposed remedial/action be
communicated with a) sender of concern b) ICANN staff? Who will do that? 

Some substantive input:

# 246: Yes. let’s send your proposed amendments to DTC for consideration. 

# 255: I agree that " trusted relationship between the CSC and the IANA functions operator” is
essential. However, in my mind, we’re preparing for the scenario where it *isn’t* a trusted relation
between the two (however unlikely that is). 

>From Your proposal I’d suggest your second idea of "Provide the SIFR as an option for the ccNSO
and/or GNSO to use in step 4.”

This would indicate yet another tool in the toolbox for achieving remedies. 

I agree with your other three proposals as well. 

I see little harm in the possibility of yet another mechanism of providing a SIFR (maybe apart from
the risk of misuse). 

#256

Yes there is a risk for duplication in-between CSC and IFR.  However I do not agree with NCSG that
this is a problem. As discussed quite elaborate in DT:s, it is perceived that CSC and IFR would have
quite different focus, and that they in worst case would overlap. 

At least in my view, it should by design be that the ”
ccNSO and RySG, a much smaller subset of the
community than involved in an IFR,   Would have the firsta say. CSC would do the ”boring and very
technical” overview, almost just instrumental, according to SLA:s SLE:s. Whereas IFR would represent
a next level. Furthermore, a full IFR is a costly process, and it is not outlined who would pay for
it
 We need to involve some economical sustainability into the proposal, even if ICANN is low in
income

-- 

:)

Staffan

staffan.jonson at iis.se <mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se> 

 +46 73 317 39 67

Från: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com> >
Datum: onsdag 27 maj 2015 20:59
Till: "DT-M (dt6 at icann.org <mailto:dt6 at icann.org> )" <dt6 at icann.org <mailto:dt6 at icann.org> >
Ämne: [DTM Escalation] DT-M Action Items from CWG Public Comments Review Tool

I would like to see if we can address the DT-M Action Items from CWG Public Comments Review Tool on
this list without a conference call.  To initiate discussion I have pasted below the rows of the
review tool that apply to DT-M and inserted my initial thoughts below each row.  Please respond with
any feedback on my thoughts and/or additional suggestions or questions you may have.  Note that
whatever we agree to should be sent to DT-C for their consideration.

Chuck

246.

AFRALO

Suggestion for alternative escalation path

We are concerned about the escalation path of the CSC as currently proposed and we suggest that CSC
escalates to PTI Board who may ask for a review (from the IFR) or any other action they judge
appropriate than the “direct customers” of IANA

The CWG-Stewardship appreciates your feedback and will factor this into its subsequent
deliberations.

Action: CWG-Stewardship (DT-M/DT-C) to consider alternative escalation path.

Here are our currently proposed steps in the Problem Resolution Process (Annex J) with possible
edits added to accommodate the suggested alternative:

1. CSC reports persistent performance issues to the IANA Functions Operator staff and requests
remedial action in a predetermined number of days. 

2. CSC confirms completion of remedial action. 

3. If CSC determines that the remedial action has been exhausted and has not led to necessary
improvements, the CSC is authorized to escalate to the PTI Board.

4. If the performance issues are still not resolved after escalation to the PTI Board, the CSC is
authorized to escalate to the ccNSO and/or the GNSO, which might then decide to take further action
using agreed consultation and escalation processes. 

In my opinion, adding the PTI Board step seems like a reasonable idea.  A similar step could happen
in the case of systemic problems.

255.

Centre for Democracy & Technology

Concerns re. step 3 of problem management and lack of detail

We have some concerns that Problem Management step 3 on page 68 - where it is suggested that the CSC
escalates to the ccNSO/GNSO - is adding a layer of escalation that may not be necessary. If requests
for remedial actions are not being addressed by the IANA functions operator then there is, one must
accept, a breakdown in the relationship and trust between the customers and the IANA functions
operator. If this is the case, and remedy is not possible, it would seem appropriate for the CSC to
call for a SIFR. A trusted relationship between the CSC and the IANA functions operator is
absolutely essential to the stability, security and resiliency of the DNS.

Further, the lack of detail relating to how systemic problems will be addressed is concerning. We
would suggest that systemic issues/problems should be subject to an SIFR and not just left to the 5
year IFR. Again, the stability, security and reliability of the DNS are paramount, and systemic
problems - which are precisely the potential issues this stewardship framework is designed to
address - must be dealt with as soon as they are identified.

The CWG-Stewardship appreciates your feedback and will factor this into its subsequent
deliberations.

Action: CWG-Stewardship (DT-M) to consider concerns re. step 3 and address lack of detail.

Regarding the suggestion that the CSC could call for a SIFR, it is not clear to me where this would
fit in the Problem Resolution Process but, using the edited steps provided below row 246 above, here
are a couple possibilities:

*       Insert a step between steps 3 & 4 that calls for a SIFR.

*       Provide the SIFR as an option for the ccNSO and/or GNSO to use in step 4.

Regarding the comments about ‘the lack of detail relating to how systemic problems will be
addressed’ here is what Annex J says now:  “The IANA Review Function will include provision to
consider whether there are any systemic issues which are impacting IANA naming services, which might
then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes.”

*       CDT is correct that we do not provide much detail.

*       I think we would agree with them that systemic problems should not be left to the 5-year
IFR.

*       If so, we could change the statement about Systemic Problems to something like the
following: “The IANA Review Function will include provision to consider whether there are any
systemic issues which are impacting IANA naming services, which might then decide to initiate SIFR.”

256.

NCSG

Concerned about inconsistencies and lack of detail

While we agree that the CSC should address issues of concern related to performance directly with
the IFO, there may be inconsistencies between the review processes related to the CSC and its
responsibilities and the IFR.  According to the consultation document p. 58  “in the event that a
material change in the IANA naming services or operations would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the
right to call for a community consultation
”  seems to be duplicative of the IFR and in particular
the special review that is a component of the IFR.  In addition the proposed CSC consultation
process seems at odds with the IFR in that any result of the consultation would be approved by the
ccNSO and RySG, a much smaller subset of the community than involved in an IFR. Our preference would
be for any such material changes be reviewed as a part of the IFR special review process.

The process for addressing “systemic problems” on p 68 needs to be further elaborated as this is a
key part of any escalation process.  While it may be convenient to footnote to “IRP and CCWG
Accountability WS 1 mechanisms”, filling this escalation gap with a fully spelled out and credible
community based process that is proven and effective will be essential prior to the finalization of
the proposal.

The CWG-Stewardship appreciates your feedback and will factor this into its subsequent
deliberations.

Action: CWG-Stewardship (DT-M) to review suggested inconsistencies and address lack of detail.

Regarding the “a material change in the IANA naming services or operations” on page 58, it seems to
me that this is a DT-C issue so I don’t think it is our place to comment on this.

Regarding the comments about systemic problems on page 68:

*       Should we refer to the SIFR process in Annex F?

*       This would seem to be consistent with the proposed edit regarding systemic reviews above for
row 255.

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work
product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150529/6299f5d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt6/attachments/20150529/6299f5d7/smime-0001.p7s>