[CWG-Stewardship] Notes and Recordings DT-M | 2 June

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, transcript and recordings for the CWG IANA DT-M Meeting on 2 June will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776241%20>  

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


Footnote 36 - consider timing of this work. DT to review section 4 (implementation considerations)
to determine whether any updates could/should be made there to reflect work that is needed in
relation to mediation options.

DT M / DT C to co-ordinate where input regarding punch list items #21 - 23 - where will the agreed
approach be incorporated? ccNSO & GNSO to undertake further work on this issue - might be another
implementation item to be included in section 4.

DT M to consider whether esclation in problem management in step 4 should be to ccNSO/GNSO or
ccNSO/RySG.

Escalation to PTI Board can be a useful step as it could result in correction of issue, even if
changes are small that PTI Board is able to correct the issue if it has not been addressed before by
PTI staff. If issue is not addressed by PTI Board, issue would be escalated to ccNSO/GNSO.

Should PTI Board be able to ask for review by SIFR? PTI Board could request SIFR and submit this
request to the ICANN Board. ICANN Board with community input could then make a decision on whether
or not an SIFR is initiated. PTI Board should not be making such a request to the CSC. DT N/SR/X to
consider this update as part of the separation process annex. DT M also consider making reference to
this in the section (for example as a footnote) on escalation mechanisms, following CWG agreement on
including this.

DTM proposes to keep escalation to ccNSO and GNSO instead of RySG noting that the equivalence
between RySg and the ccNSO is a false equivalence. Both name supporting organization organization
are multistakeholder organizations. In the GNSO there is a global organization of the stakeholder
into separate SGs and Constituencies. In the ccNSO the is a local stakeholder organization so that
according to RFC 1591, each of the ccTLD is a self contained multistakeholder entity.

In response to ALAC comment: DT M understands concern but practical considerations of using existing
structures have enough advantages to support going this direction. DT M also notes that GNSO has
explored the relationship between implementation the policis made, and can raise alarms and request
a SIFR; 2. GNSO is about more than policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and
budget.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150602/cc3937e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150602/cc3937e8/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150602/cc3937e8/smime.p7s>