[ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
Thu Aug 10 20:54:11 UTC 2017
Elise – ah, now I see where you are coming from. There are two separate ‘escalation processes’: One for ‘individual complaints’ which are not found to be ‘performance issues’ which can be escalated all the way up to an IRP, which the Naming Functions Contract refers to as the ‘Complaint Resolution Process’. And a second escalation process for ‘individual complaints’ found to be ‘performance issues’ which can involve invoking the RAPs, which the contract refers to as the ‘Problem Resolution Process’. Personally, I like the distinction made between ‘complaint’ and ‘problem’.
I know that the CSC’s report refers to ‘escalations’ in the sense of complaints that have been elevated to management. However, the CSC is not able to review ‘individual complaints’ to determine if there is a performance issue until after the complainant has gone to the ICANN Ombudsman. So, I am not sure just what ‘an escalation’ is meant to refer to. I would add that the Naming Functions Contract does not use the term ‘escalation’ in the way that you propose it, as a noun, as in ‘an escalation’. Rather it only uses it as an adjective, as in ‘escalation procedure’ or ‘escalation processes’. Perhaps the CSC Report should refer to ‘Outstanding Complaints’ rather than ‘Escalations’, as should, heaven forbid, we get into a situation where the RAPs have been invoked we will need to then report on two ‘escalation process’, one for ‘complaints’ and one for ‘problems’ which would be almost as confusing as this debate we are having.
From: Elise Gerich [mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org]
Sent: August-10-17 3:49 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray; Gannon, James-1; ICANN-CSC at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Allan – Sorry to have you scratching your head. I was looking to have consistency with the Naming Functions Contract. In the Naming Functions Contract in Section 8.1 (a) it says:
“If the Complaint is not so resolved, the Complainant may escalate the matter in writing to Contractor’s management team, in which case Contractor shall notify the CSC. “
My reading of the sequence envisioned by the Naming Functions Contract is slightly different than what you wrote and the difference is in step 1. It would be: 1) the complainant escalates to Contrator’s management and the CSC is notified; and then 2) if the escalation is found to represent a persistent performance issue, then 3) the CSC may invoke the Remedial Action Procedures.
Hope that clarifies the reason for the suggestion.
From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:34 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at iana.org<mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org>>, "Gannon, James-1" <james-1.gannon at novartis.com<mailto:james-1.gannon at novartis.com>>, "ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Elise – you have me scratching my head on this one. I believe you are referring to this section:
“The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether any patterns of poor performance issues exist and if so, to invoke the Remedial Action procedures if necessary” (text reflects the proposed changes).
My reading of the sequence envisaged in this section is : 1) The ‘individual complaint’ is reviewed by the CSC, and then 2) if found to represent a ‘performance issue’, then 3) the CSC may invoke the Remedial Action Procedures 4) at which point the ‘individual complaint would become an ‘escalation’. I would also add that even if an individual complaint is found to constitute a performance issue, the complainant is still permitted to continue to seek an individual (e.g. non-RAP) resolution, including using an IRP. So my sense is that we should leave the term ‘individual complaint’ intact in this clause.
From: icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich
Sent: August-10-17 2:53 PM
To: Gannon, James-1; ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
In addition to the feedback from James, I would like to suggest replacing the words “individual complaints” with “escalations” in the sentence about patterns of poor performance. While it may seem like a minor point I think the distinction is worth making.
From: <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Gannon, James-1" <james-1.gannon at novartis.com<mailto:james-1.gannon at novartis.com>>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM
To: "ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Some feedback that I would like to discuss, I would like to suggest that the references to the IANA functions operator remain as drafted and not be changed to reflect the current IFO which is PTI, this distinction was important during the CWG to allow for a framework to move to a future IFO that may not be PTI and may not be associated with ICANN.
While I understand that this may seem like a minor point I think its an important distinction.
Also the reporting on any remedial actions taken should be reported to the GNSO as a whole alongside the ccNSO rather than just the RySG in my opinion.
Thanks in advance and happy to discuss on the call,
IGM Manager – Projects & IT Security SME
From: icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Otanes
Sent: 10 August 2017 14:11
To: ICANN-CSC at icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
Subject: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Please find the agenda for the August CSC meeting below and attached. The next call will be held next Thursday, 17 August, at 20:00 UTC.
The attached documents can also be found on the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/TBEhB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_TBEhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=pXgd7rUFmOGPSaTcf3kROMV5Rt3fTXejagLVImG-D14&m=3mxJPjWAGheBfACb9jjuXSCImrFOcQW2s6Wc_n_IWsk&s=WPp05oE6KNa3RtVpo-y-zHMbVaDZXbTi91Il0CO6QAs&e=>
All the best,
Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Meeting 13
17 August 2017 @ 20:00 – 21:30 UTC
1. Welcome and Introduction
2. Action items (only report on open items)
Action 12 2017 01 Elise G going forward PTI reports should be based on new methodology. Agreed to start with update June PTI report (Completed)
Action 12 2017 02 Bart come up with scenario's for SLE change procedure
Action 12 2017 03 James, Byron and Bart to work on logistics for ccNSO and GNSO Council approval of changes to SLE
Action 12 2017 04 Elaine to circulate to CSC proposed changes to CSC charter (Completed)
Action 12 2017 05 Byron to put forward sketch of first year annual reporting framework (August meeting) to present to community in Abu Dhabi
3. PTI Performance July 2017
a. PTI report to CSC
b. CSC report
4. Update from Remedial Action Procedures Working Group
5. Update on Procedure for SLA Amendment
6. Update on CSC Charter Review
a. Confirm of charter adoption
b. CSC review of its charter
7. ICANN60 Abu Dhabi (28 October - 3 November)
a. Outline Annual Update/Report (action 05, see above)
b. Proposed Meetings schedule
c. Outline Presentations: What needs to be included?
ii. Full-deck and Summary deck?
Novartis Ireland Ltd.
Registered No. 11931, Ireland.
Registered Office: The Vista Building, Elm Park Business Park, Merrion Road, Dublin 4. DO4 A9N6, Ireland.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ICANN-CSC