[DTC CSC] Public Comment 222

[Donna Austin]

Martin

I've made a different suggestion which you'll see in a separate email.

I think the liaison role as you've described below should apply to both members and liaisons.

Thanks

Donna

From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2015 9:25 AM
To: dt3 at icann.org
Subject: [DTC CSC] Public Comment 222

I have a lot of empathy for these (Google's) comments.  (My one minor reservation is on "(3) raising and addressing any persistent performance deficiencies related to naming" which I think is an over-simplified description of what we suggest.  We argued that the CSC's role was to seek remedial action in the case of service failure.  However, the CSC should not be substituting itself for the IANA functions operator, so it is not of itself addressing, but requesting the PTI to improve its performance.)

The role of the liaisons does need to be addressed and I would agree with the comment that this needs to be done now.

How about:


*         We agree that the role of the liaisons in the CSC does need to be defined.  We believe that this should be to ensure communications between the work of the CSC and the wider stakeholder community.  In particular, the liaisons should:

o   Raise with the CSC any concerns that have been identified by their community and help address those concerns;

o   Ensure distribution of reports from the PTI and the CSC to their community;

o   Help organise the regular meetings between the PTI and/or CSC with the wider community.

What do others think?

The other points raised by Google I think reinforce points made by DT-C, so can simply be welcomed and agreed.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150603/82087547/attachment-0001.html>