[ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Draft February 2017 CSC Report

Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen at icann.org
Wed Mar 15 07:08:36 UTC 2017


Thanks, Jay! I’ve attached a revised report that includes this change. I’ve attached both a redline and a clean version.

Best,

Trang

On 3/15/17, 7:13 AM, "Jay Daley" <jay at nzrs.net.nz> wrote:

    I’m happy with that.  Thank you.
    
    > On 14/03/2017, at 6:43 PM, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org> wrote:
    > 
    > Dear Jay, All,
    > 
    > May I suggest a revision to the new addition that you suggested? The reason being that I don’t think we should completely close the door on this topic. The Board might want to re-look at this step of process in the future, particularly if the community asks that the Board re-examines it. I have suggested some revisions below for consideration. I have also included minor wording edits for (b) for consideration.
    > 
    > The CSC notes that: a) any future work to clarify if the IANA Stewardship transition impacts the ccTLD delegation/transfer process will occur as a separate process and not as part of the processing of a ccTLD delegation/transfer request; and b) that removing the time incurred for this clarification process would still have resulted in the SLA target not being met for the month of February 2017.
    > 
    > Trang
    > 
    > On 3/14/17, 1:55 PM, "Jay Daley" <jay at nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
    > 
    >    Sorry to disagree but I think the point is for the CSC to note that it recognises this was a unique and one off situation that will not occur again.
    > 
    >    How about something like this:
    > 
    >    ----
    >    The CSC also notes that the PTI report provides the following explanation for exceeding the expected SLE for this item:
    > 
    >    “Another factor that contributed to increased staff processing time was the need to clarify if the IANA Stewardship transition impacted the ccTLD delegation/transfer process, specifically the role of the ICANN Board going forward.”
    > 
    >    The CSC notes that a) this was a unique and one off situation that will not occur again; and b) that eliminating this factor would still have seen the target not met.
    >    ----
    > 
    >    Jay
    > 
    >> On 14/03/2017, at 1:50 PM, Feher, Kal <Kalman.Feher at neustar.biz> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Hi Trang,
    >> I like your suggested text. I think it is worth noting in our report on this occasion.
    >> 
    >> Kal Feher
    >> Neustar Inc. / Enterprise Architect
    >> Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004
    >> Office +61 3 9866 3710 / kal.feher at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
    >> 
    >> Follow Neustar:   <54033593-3099-4D83-8140-0D8157811442[15].png> Facebook   <CD6E1201-C37D-47D2-B2EA-486E58552390[15].png> LinkedIn   <A61F1170-9103-40BB-BDCE-E545DF2935F7[15].png> Twitter
    >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
    >> Date: Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 13:07
    >> To: Jay Daley <jay at nzrs.net.nz>, Kal Feher <kalman.feher at neustar.biz>
    >> Cc: Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.email>, "ICANN-CSC at icann.org" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
    >> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [ICANN-CSC] Draft February 2017 CSC Report
    >> 
    >> Dear Kal and Jay,
    >> 
    >> This point is covered in the rationale section of the PTI report, and there is already a sentence in the CSC report letting readers know to go to the PTI report for explanations of the missed SLAs. If the CSC would like to further highlight the rationale in the CSC report, I think we should use the same text for consistency. If this is the case, I would suggest adding the text in red below:
    >> 
    >> As it relates to (b) above, the frequency with which ccTLD Creation/Transfer is requested is very low, in the order of one request a month. As a result, the CSC intends to monitor this metric for several months, possibly longer, in order to acquire sufficient data for an evidenced view on what action it should take. The CSC also notes that the PTI report provides the following explanation for exceeding the expected SLE for this item:
    >> “Another factor that contributed to increased staff processing time was the need to clarify if the IANA Stewardship transition impacted the ccTLD delegation/transfer process, specifically the role of the ICANN Board going forward.”
    >> 
    >> Best,
    >> 
    >> Trang
    >> 
    >> On 3/14/17, 11:09 AM, "Jay Daley" <jay at nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
    >> 
    >>    Good point.  Noting it would be useful.
    >> 
    >>> On 14/03/2017, at 10:06 AM, Feher, Kal <Kalman.Feher at neustar.biz> wrote:
    >>> 
    >>> I can't recall if we intended for the one-off post-transition delegation path uncertainty which caused some delays to be acknowledged in the PTI report only or in the CSC report as an additional note. I think a note in our report (the Feb CSC report) may be worthwhile, but not particularly critical.
    >>> Kal Feher
    >>> Neustar Inc. / Enterprise Architect
    >>> Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004
    >>> Office +61 3 9866 3710 / kal.feher at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
    >>> 
    >>> Follow Neustar:   <54033593-3099-4D83-8140-0D8157811442[7].png> Facebook   <CD6E1201-C37D-47D2-B2EA-486E58552390[7].png> LinkedIn   <A61F1170-9103-40BB-BDCE-E545DF2935F7[7].png> Twitter
    >>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> From: <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.email>
    >>> Date: Monday, 13 March 2017 at 16:20
    >>> To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
    >>> Cc: "ICANN-CSC at icann.org" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
    >>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Draft February 2017 CSC Report
    >>> 
    >>> Works for me. Thanks Jay.
    >>> 
    >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org> wrote:
    >>>> All,
    >>>> 
    >>>> Jay provided text for the additional note that the CSC agreed on adding to the report. Please see attached a revised version with Jay’s text inserted.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Best,
    >>>> 
    >>>> Trang
    >>>> 
    >>>> From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
    >>>> Date: Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM
    >>>> To: "ICANN-CSC at icann.org" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
    >>>> Subject: Draft February 2017 CSC Report
    >>>> 
    >>>> All,
    >>>> 
    >>>> As agreed on the last CSC call, we have drafted the February CSC report ahead of the March meeting for your review and discussion. This document is redlined against the CSC January 2017 report, and is based on the PTI report that Elise circulated on 10 March.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Best,
    >>>> 
    >>>> Trang
    >>>> 
    >>>> _______________________________________________
    >>>> ICANN-CSC mailing list
    >>>> ICANN-CSC at icann.org
    >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc
    >>>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> -- 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> Elaine Pruis, Vice President, Operations
    >>> Donuts Inc.
    >>> 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. | Telephone: 509.899.3161
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> 
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> ICANN-CSC mailing list
    >>> ICANN-CSC at icann.org
    >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc
    >> 
    >> 
    >>    -- 
    >>    Jay Daley
    >>    Chief Executive
    >>    NZRS Ltd
    >>    desk: +64 4 931 6977
    >>    mobile: +64 21 678840
    >>    linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
    > 
    > 
    >    -- 
    >    Jay Daley
    >    Chief Executive
    >    NZRS Ltd
    >    desk: +64 4 931 6977
    >    mobile: +64 21 678840
    >    linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
    > 
    > 
    
    
    -- 
    Jay Daley
    Chief Executive
    NZRS Ltd
    desk: +64 4 931 6977
    mobile: +64 21 678840
    linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
    
    

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT - CSC February2017 Report_Clean_v3.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 115373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170315/f6be893b/DRAFT-CSCFebruary2017Report_Clean_v3-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT - CSC February2017 Report_Redline_v3.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 116051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170315/f6be893b/DRAFT-CSCFebruary2017Report_Redline_v3-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20170315/f6be893b/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the ICANN-CSC mailing list