[CWG-Stewardship] Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs

[Gomes, Chuck]

Please see my thoughts below Jonathan.

Chuck

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:13 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs

Thanks Chuck,

Do you have a view as to whether or not DT-J should (or could) run simultaneous with DT-C (CSC) or should we wait until the DT-C is complete / nearer completion?
[Chuck Gomes] Because DT-C is already formed (or nearly formed), I think it might be useful to get their opinion on this. In my own view, I think it could be done either way. Because of the overlap in their task descriptions, there probably would be advantages if at least some of the same people worked on both.

With regard to DT-M, I agree that it may be a natural follow on to DT-C. A key overall issue to be clear on is the layers of escalation (and which DT deals with them) as we move from a relatively minor breach of an SLA on the one end through to a systematic and repeated failure to perform and moreover, an inability to remedy such failure at the other. Any further help in clarifying the scope of the respective DTs as we work through this will be helpful.
[Chuck Gomes] DT-M will ultimately need to involve accountability mechanisms so its timing will eventually be dependent on the decisions made on accountability.  It might be effective to divide it into two parts: 1) develop a proposed set of progressive escalation steps; 2) synchronize the escalation steps with the accountability recommendations once those are fairly well defined.  I think 1) could be done anytime while 2) would need to wait until more progress is made on accountability measures, especially those at the higher end of escalation.

Jonathan

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 09 March 2015 22:20
To: jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs

I do not think that Design Team J (CSC/MRT confidentiality and the perception of conflicts of interest) should be merged with Design Team I (Competition policy and Conflicts of Interest).  Proposed Team I involves policy.  Proposed Team J concerns specific procedures that will need to be developed for the CSC or CSC like body.

Design Team M (Escalation Mechanisms beyond CSC) seems to overlap with Design Team C (CSC), especially the following items listed for C:

*         (e) Specify an instruction for CSC, describing remedial action in the event of poor performance of IANA against specified SLAs.

*         (g) Consider whether it would be appropriate for the CSC to be an initial point of escalation for TLD operators who are experiencing IANA performance issues.
It may be that Team M would make a natural follow-up to Team C or that M could be subsumed by C.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:50 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated version of the Status Overview for the CWG DTs


All,



Please see attached for a status update on the Design Teams in preparation for our call tomorrow.



Lise and I have reviewed the whole DT landscape and the current status is reflected in the document.



Please note that it contains the following:



*         A status for each DT per the model of the step-by-step process which has been referenced in Annex A.

*         A note section as part of the index to provide additional comments as needed

*         New prospective DTs added

o   L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism),

o   M (Escalation mechanisms beyond CSC) and

o   N (Periodic Review of IANA Functions).

*         An updated description for .INT DT to match description in draft transition proposal.

*         An 'expression of interest field', currently only in the Authorization Function DT-D
(as other expression of interests come in, we'll create the same for other DTs).



Where a priority is set as final, that is the priority we have agreed. Where it is provisional, that is indicative pending further detail on the DT emerging.



I look forward to reviewing this with you on the tomorrow.



Thanks,



Jonathan






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150310/a03c3534/attachment-0001.html>