[ICANN-CSC] Decks for Abu Dhabi

Allan MacGillivray allan.macgillivray at cira.ca
Sun Oct 29 11:55:45 UTC 2017

Naela - we changed the word 'complaints' to 'escalations' to be consistent with the wording in the CSC report. Was something more being sought?

Sent with BlackBerry Work

From: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org<mailto:naela.sarras at iana.org>>
Date: Sunday, Oct 29, 2017, 3:50 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, ICANN-CSC at icann.org <icann-csc at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Decks for Abu Dhabi

Hi Allan,

Slide 3 in the short version and slide 7 in the long version don't seem to have been updated per the discussion we had a little earlier today. Namely following the terminology used in the CSC reports on PTI performance for referring to escalations.


On 10/23/17, 11:26 PM, "icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Allan MacGillivray" <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>> wrote:

I am attaching new drafts of two decks for your use in Abu Dhabi.  While the first 'longer one' is a now a bit shorter bit shorter, it still may seem to be a bit long. The reasons for this include the need for 'obligatory consultations' (slide 6 on performance of PTI, slide 14 on the SLE changes) as well as the slides on the PTI survey.  You will recall that the CSC has committed to PTI that it would raise the issue of survey participation with the registries.  The second deck is much shorter, which might be used for the meeting with the ICANN Board.  There is still time to make changes, but these will need to be finalized by Friday.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20171029/c9d29853/attachment.html>

More information about the ICANN-CSC mailing list