...
Sub-Group Members: Donna Austin, Kurt Pritz, Martin Boyle, Staffan Jonson, Stephanie Duchesneau
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p48twarb76o/
The audio recording is available here:
Notes
Mission
Includes language why it was established (first sentence)
Agreed
Include /change to :
as it relates to monitoring the performance of..."
Last paragraph
Agreed
Scope of responsibilities
First sentence (new)
Agreed
Change to fifth paragraph:
CSC is NOT a dispute mechanism
CSC may receive complaints ( re statisticsre statistics, etc.) NOT for individual cases.
Staffan: DT M was not pleased with repsonse DT M was not pleased with response ( see Staffan's email)
Martin: Useful to know, as to why DT M the CSC should go into details of other people problems DTM process approach,
Martin: CSC part of potential forum shopping
Staffan: Fear of forum shopping.
Sooner or later, deadlock of each other
Donna: Potential issues may have arisen from one of the papers
According to this paper
Stephanie: Question from Chuck ( DT M) whether escalation
Raise issue at DT leads
New sentences As suggested by David
Martin: Generally agreement , suggested refinement of language
"This consultation is expected to include any *proposed* changes to the IANA services that are underway or are anticipated in the future. "
Stephanie Strike underway.
Kurt: Retain expertise if necessary, expand the option.
Staffan: If CSC ehas an expended mandate If CSC has an expended mandate, make it not too big
Donna: Await
Donna: CSC is first and foremost a monitoring entity.
On the other hand David C, changes
No Authorization
CSC can facilitate consultation, _. IFO should take it forward ad implementation is its responsibility. CSC should not be in the position.
Donna:
DT CSC is uncomfortable with role of CSC to undertake a role in development
There is a need for such a mechanism, but need somewhere else
The CSC has an overview role. Overview is typically problem oriented, a reactive function to mend what doesn't work in a predefined order. Development (innovation) of IANA functions is not necessary in the scope of the CSC (maybe rather in IETF)
Composition
Only change, accepted
Terms:
Recall of Members
New language:
Agreed
Review
Separate the review of charter and effectiveness of CSC itself on -> one
Martin: review of charter in two year.
Turn round: At the request CSC, GNSO or ccNSO
Service levels review targets> it is initiated in one of the annual meetings. Should be driven by need
Stephanie: agrees with Martin
Review of Service level targets will be most important piece of data for review service
Change second paragraph: can be done at request of CSC, ccNSO and GNSO
Final Sentence: should be picked - up though in annual meeting, or as part of review of SOW.
Martin:
Good point Kurt, if SL no longer appropriate -> to be raised.
CSC should be able to raise issue and then go through consultation. CSC should not be put in a position to review every 18 month
Last paragraph:
The CSC or IFO, can request changes any time, any proposed
Martin: replace "changes" -> review
Donna: need a reasonable quick process to change
-------- (04/10/2015 14:45) ---------------------
Donna Austin, RySG: The CSC or the IFO can request a review or change to service level targets. Any proposed changes to service level targets as a result
of the review must be agreed by the ccNSO and GNSO.
Add : in accordance with a pre-defined process
Include general sentence around mechanism to define and change processes (to be approved by GNSO and ccNSO)
Action
Donna & Staffan Raise issues around
1. Potential overlap and divergence in interpretation of CSC with respect to its role in escalation process (limited view)
2. Placeholder for role in development/evolution of (new) services. Potential conflict with strict monitoring role. However recognition role is necessary