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

Bart Boswinkel bart.boswinkel at icann.org
Mon Jan 14 16:18:02 UTC 2019


Dear all, 

 

Given James’ comments from Friday 11 January 2019 (see below), next step would be adoption of amended RAP by the CSC (and PTI, each) in accordance with the appropriate procedures. For the CSC this implies all 4 members need to be present at the meeting ( the quorum rule) and at least 3 of the 4 members need to be in favour of the proposal.

 

Included again is the latest version of the amended RAP ( the PDF contains the clean version without track changes, the word version, the redlined version)

Kind regards,

Bart

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Date: Friday, 11 January 2019 at 14:12
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
Cc: "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

 

Thanks Bart, 

I’ll concede on this point and let this continue without further objection, in my opinion I see the RAP more as a standing operational template for the CSC to oversee the IFO (Whomever that may be) however the impression I am getting is that I may be in the rough on that understanding and the consensus on the CSC and PTI/ICANN is that is specific to the current IFO. My personal opinion is that the CSC should avoid building process around a specific IFO and should be more neutral but that may just be my own perspective.

 

Thank you to those who have humoured me on this point and lets get these moved forward.

 

-James

 



On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org> wrote:

 

Dear James, All,

One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again.

 

As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are:

1. Inclusion of a change mechanism

2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the  ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 

3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP

 

In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. 

As to the 2nd  proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication.  There were no comments with respect to this point.

 

With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain 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. It is strongly advised not to include it. 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. 

 

In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) 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.

 

To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the  recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator.  

 

In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains  of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a  new RAP with any new IANA  Functions Operator and  that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. 

 

Including in the RAP  -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP,  which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication.

 

Kind regards,

Bart 

 

 

 

From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: "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

 

James,

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,

Bart

 

 

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. 

 

<draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx><draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20190114/b254427d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 270058 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20190114/b254427d/draftRAPrevisionsNovember2018clean1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20190114/b254427d/draftRAPrevisionsNovember2018redline1-0001.docx>
-------------- 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/20190114/b254427d/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the ICANN-CSC mailing list