[ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Allan MacGillivray
allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
Wed Aug 16 14:12:54 UTC 2017
Elise – I have had a look at the flow chart that you circulated on Monday. I am just trying to figure out what it represents. I note that it includes some of the proposals that were made in the Strawman proposal that was circulated a few weeks ago, such as having the PTI Board, ICANN CEO and ICANN Board represent the three levels of escalation. But I also note that it contains a number of differences from the Strawman proposal, such as:
· a reference to a ‘Remedial Action Plan’ instead of the proposed ‘Corrective Action Plan’
· no allowance for PTI to participate in the ‘performance issue review discussion’
· clarification of just what might be ‘satisfactory’, or not, in terms of escalation
· regular reporting to CSC on the process
Is this a ‘counter proposal’ from PTI relative to the Strawman that was circulated previously? If so, perhaps you could flesh it out a bit with some definitions. For example, in the Strawman proposal, we were clear that a failure to produce a Corrective Action Plan satisfactory to the CSC would itself represent an event that could trigger an escalation. This goes to Kal’s question on your chart.
I am attaching again the materials that were circulated a few weeks ago in preparation for tomorrow’s meeting of the RAP WG.
Allan
From: Elise Gerich [mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org]
Sent: August-15-17 6:54 PM
To: Feher, Kal; Allan MacGillivray; Gannon, James-1; ICANN-CSC at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Hi Kal,
Thank you for taking a look at the flowchart and providing feedback.
>>>-There is no path out of the 3-4-5 loop unless agreement is reached. If CSC and PTI can't reach agreement on an initial Remedial Action Plan, then perhaps it should be escalated to step 8.
Good point. Would three iterations of a draft remedial action plan be sufficient to try and reach agreement, or do you suggest a different number of iterations. To represent the number of iterations in the flowchart, we could have a decision box between #5 and #3 asking is this a third draft. If it is a third draft it could then escalate to #8 instead of going to #3.
>>>-Step 7 may require some form of measurement over time, especially if the persistent issue applies to something that occurs only rarely. To make a satisfactory assessment, the CSC may need to observe several iterations of the metric being within SLAs. I'm not sure how that would be (or even if it needs to be) represented in the workflow.
A good topic to discuss on the upcoming CSC call.
>>>-Steps 14 and 15 are not collaborative. That is, the steps read as if the ICANN CEO creates and presents the corrective action plan to the CSC. Is this intentional? I've reread the proposed RAP in the document. In particular the message content and response rows and columns, which I believe inform the actions in the workflow diagram. IMO these suggest that 2nd and 3rd escalations should follow the collaborative discussion process proposed for the 1st notice, with new participants.
Seems reasonable to make those steps collaborative also. Good catch.
Thanks for your feedback.
--Elise
From: "Feher, Kal" <Kalman.Feher at team.neustar<mailto:Kalman.Feher at team.neustar>>
Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at iana.org<mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org>>, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, "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: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
I apologise if I am late to the discussion of the Remedial Action Procedures, but I have a few comments on the workflow document.
Firstly thank you for the diagram. It is very useful in terms of visualising the process.
Referring to the numbered workflow items:
-There is no path out of the 3-4-5 loop unless agreement is reached. If CSC and PTI can't reach agreement on an initial Remedial Action Plan, then perhaps it should be escalated to step 8.
-Step 7 may require some form of measurement over time, especially if the persistent issue applies to something that occurs only rarely. To make a satisfactory assessment, the CSC may need to observe several iterations of the metric being within SLAs. I'm not sure how that would be (or even if it needs to be) represented in the workflow.
-Steps 14 and 15 are not collaborative. That is, the steps read as if the ICANN CEO creates and presents the corrective action plan to the CSC. Is this intentional? I've reread the proposed RAP in the document. In particular the message content and response rows and columns, which I believe inform the actions in the workflow diagram. IMO these suggest that 2nd and 3rd escalations should follow the collaborative discussion process proposed for the 1st notice, with new participants.
I also find the use of Remedial Action Procedures (entry into workflow) and Remedial Action Plan (Steps 3,6,10 and11) a little confusing. I'd love to use more distinct terms.
Kal Feher
From: <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at iana.org<mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org>>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 07:39
To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, "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: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
All,
To those of you who may have missed the Remedial Procedures workflow that Marilia drafted, I have attached it for your review.
--Elise
From: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at iana.org<mailto:elise.gerich at iana.org>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 5:11 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, "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: Re: [Ext] RE: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
Hi Allan,
Glad to see that we both read the Naming function contract in the same way. Yes, Section 8.1 defines the Complaint Resolution process, and it is within this process that PTI notifies the CSC when a complainant initiates a formal escalation. And it Section 8.2 which defines the Problem Resolution Process that might trigger the Remedial action procedures. Marilia was kind enough to draft a workflow diagram that depicts this progression.
Like you, I also like the distinction between complaint and problem, and I hope that we are on the same page now.
Have a nice weekend.
--Elise
From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:54 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: RE: [Ext] RE: [ICANN-CSC] Agenda: CSC Meeting 13, 17 August, 20:00-21:30 UTC
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.
Allan
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<mailto: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.
Thanks,
--Elise
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.
Allan
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
Hi all,
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.
Thank you,
--Elise
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
Hi all,
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,
James Gannon
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
Dear CSC,
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,
Ria
----------
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?
i. Topics
ii. Full-deck and Summary deck?
8. AOB
9. Adjourn
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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170816/a84f758c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Background Material on RAP.PDF
Type: application/pdf
Size: 392058 bytes
Desc: Background Material on RAP.PDF
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170816/a84f758c/BackgroundMaterialonRAP-0001.PDF>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Background on RAP from Foundation Documents..docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34118 bytes
Desc: Background on RAP from Foundation Documents..docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170816/a84f758c/BackgroundonRAPfromFoundationDocuments.-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RAP Deck July 14_amended.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1140538 bytes
Desc: RAP Deck July 14_amended.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170816/a84f758c/RAPDeckJuly14_amended-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised Strawman Proposal for Remedial Action Procedures.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20463 bytes
Desc: Revised Strawman Proposal for Remedial Action Procedures.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170816/a84f758c/RevisedStrawmanProposalforRemedialActionProcedures-0001.docx>
More information about the ICANN-CSC
mailing list