...
Sub-Group Members: Charles Gomes, Avri Doria, Staffan Jonson
Staff: Marika Konings, Brenda Brewer
**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/p3m57xi2pzj/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtm-02jun15-en.mp3
Agenda
1. Start recording
2. Roll call
3. Overview of edits made to Final CWG Proposal (Marika)
a. Section III.A.ii.PROPOSED OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILITY REPLACEMENT, Escalation Mechanisms, pp.25-26
b. Annex I (IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions), pp.71-73
c. Annex J [IANA Problem Resolution Process (for IANA naming services only)], pp.74-78
d. Annex K (Root Zone Emergency Process), pp.79-82
4. Discussion of public comment action items (see Staffan’s comment document)
a. Item 246, suggestion for alternative escalation path by AFRALO
b. Item 255, concerns re. step 3 of problem management and lack of detail from the Centre for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
c. Item 256, concerned about inconsistencies and lack of detail from NCSG
d. Other?
5. Are there any other edits needed in the DT-M sections of the final proposal?
6. AOB
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.
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (6/2/2015 09:29) Hello and welcome to the DT-M Meeting on 2 June.
Brenda Brewer: (10:00) Hi Avri! you're on time!
Brenda Brewer: (10:01) Hi Chuck!
Avri Doria: (10:01) how many is quorom?
Staffan Jonson: (10:03) Hello all
Brenda Brewer: (10:04) not yet
Brenda Brewer: (10:04) sure
Brenda Brewer: (10:05) 6 members plus
Brenda Brewer: (10:06) chairs
Avri Doria: (10:06) close enough. i asked when we were only 2.
Avri Doria: (10:16) so the PTI Board would be the one to cause an IFR?
Avri Doria: (10:19) i do not recall us agreeing to RySG only.
Marika Konings: (10:25) @Avri - I think that was something discussed on Thursday / Friday in response to an ALAC comment to that regards?
Avri Doria: (10:31) it is a good bet, it is what was push in the draft final. kind of looks like someone is deciding.
Avri Doria: (10:31) .. was put in... though ...push in ... might be freudian.
Avri Doria: (10:34) i have never imagined CSC as peing part of PTI, i think it must be ICANN.
Avri Doria: (10:35) they represent the intersts of the customers.
Avri Doria: (10:35) not the entity itself.
Marika Konings: (10:53) Presumably this should be covered as part of the IFR annex, not escalation mechanisms, correct?
Avri Doria: (11:11) 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.
Marika Konings: (11:24) My challenge currently is that my phone has frozen and I cannot get off mute
Marika Konings: (11:24) and now my phone has just restarted itself and disconnected my line...
Avri Doria: (11:24) 1. GNSO has explored the relationship between implementation the policis made, and can raise alamrs and requet a SIFR
Avri Doria: (11:25) 2. GNSO is about more than policy and has views of all things ICANN, such as strategy and budget &c
Avri Doria: (11:26) importnat priorities