[ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review

Bart Boswinkel bart.boswinkel at icann.org
Wed Nov 14 08:42:25 UTC 2018


The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). 

Kind regards,




From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, "ICANN-CSC at icann.org" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review


I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. 


I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs.

On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org> wrote:


As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20181114/879a2c9b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4583 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20181114/879a2c9b/smime.p7s>

More information about the ICANN-CSC mailing list