[ICANN-CSC] [Ext] RE: CSC Presentation for ICANN Barcelona

Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen at icann.org
Sat Oct 20 09:11:17 UTC 2018

Hi Allan,

Thank you! As requested, I’ve provided some suggested language (in red below) for slide 8 of the short deck and slide 12 of the long deck to capture the recent work that PTI/CSC/ICANN have been doing on the SLA process.

  *   The recently completed CSC Charter review requires that
“The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed.”

  *   The process for changing SLA’s is cumbersome, as these are currently part of the IANA Naming Functions Contract
  *   ICANN, PTI, and CSC have been collaborating on defining a more efficient process for changing, adding, and removing service level(s).



From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
Date: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 7:46 PM
To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>, Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>, "icann-csc at icann.org" <ICANN-CSC at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Presentation for ICANN Barcelona

Trang/Naela – I thought that I would respond to your individual comments in one email.

Trang – I’m very happy to reflect the excellent cooperation from ICANN on the SLA changes but can’t seem to find the specific text you are referring to.  Could you send me some text that I could paste in?

Naela – the language on ‘complaints’ comes right out of the CSC Charter (pasted below), but I’m very open to something consistent with this.

“The CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA Naming Function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a direct dispute between any registry operator and the IANA Functions Operator. The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether there are any patterns of poor performance by the IANA Functions Operator in responding to complaints of a similar nature.”

From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 8:47 PM
To: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org>; Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>; Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>; icann-csc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Presentation for ICANN Barcelona

Hi Allan,

Thank you for all of your work in putting these decks together. I had one more suggestion in addition to the one that Naela raised below. On slide 12 of the long deck and slide 8 of the short deck, as ICANN, PTI, and the CSC have been collaborating on the SLA change procedures, it would be good to reflect the collaboration of all three parties in place of the single reference to IANA Functions Operator, which per the IANA Naming Function Contract is ICANN.



From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org<mailto:naela.sarras at iana.org>>
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:37 AM
To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes at icann.org>>, "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] CSC Presentation for ICANN Barcelona

Hi Allan,

Thank you for sharing the updated slides. One feedback on slide #6 of the short deck and #8 of the long deck, the second sub-bullet points refers to individual complaints. I believe it needs to be adjusted to “escalated complaints.”

•CSC role is limited to:
•monitoring PTI’s overall complaint management system
•being informed of the status of individual complaints

Thank you,

On 10/4/18, 12:04 PM, "ICANN-CSC 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:

Colleagues – thank you for your comments on the earlier versions of these two decks.  I am attaching what I hope will be the final versions – one named ‘long version’ and the other ‘short version’.  To my mind the ‘short version’ is too long, so I would recommended that it alone be used.  The ‘long version’ does re-use about five more slides from last year’s deck, which was the first time that we gave the ICANN community an annual update.  The newer members of the CSC in particular may find it useful.

If anyone would like a pdf version, please ask.

Allan MacGillivray

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20181020/30b7eb65/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ICANN-CSC mailing list