<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Dear all, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>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)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>Bart<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, 11 January 2019 at 14:12<br><b>To: </b>Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org><br><b>Cc: </b>"ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks Bart, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you to those who have humoured me on this point and lets get these moved forward.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-James<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <<a href="mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org">bart.boswinkel@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Dear James, All,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>1. Inclusion of a change mechanism</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2<sup>nd</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>and 3<sup>rd</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>proposed change.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>As to the 2<sup>nd<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></sup> 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>With respect to the 3<sup>rd</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>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.</i></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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, 7<sup>th</sup><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>paragraph)<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><i><span style='font-size:15.0pt'>Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team</span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>1</span></i><i><span style='font-size:15.0pt'>, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator.</span></i><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:15.0pt'> </span></span><span style='font-size:15.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:15.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:15.0pt'>In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><i><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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 Team</span></i><i><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>3</span></i><i><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Kind regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Bart<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:15.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:15.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>ICANN-CSC <<a href="mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org">icann-csc-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <<a href="mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org">bart.boswinkel@icann.org</a>><br><b>Date:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42<br><b>To:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>><br><b>Cc:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>"<a href="mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org">ICANN-CSC@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org">ICANN-CSC@icann.org</a>>, Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>James,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>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).<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Kind regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Bart</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>><br><b>Date:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46<br><b>To:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Bart Boswinkel <<a href="mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org">bart.boswinkel@icann.org</a>><br><b>Cc:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>>, "<a href="mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org">ICANN-CSC@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org">ICANN-CSC@icann.org</a>>, Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <<a href="mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org"><span style='color:purple'>bart.boswinkel@icann.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'>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.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx><draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>