Content Comparison

Transcript

Transcript DT-C Meeting 8 May.doc

Transcript DT-C Meeting 8 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4pufnglhit/

The audio recording is available here:  :   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtc-08may15-en.mp3

Notes

"Punch List" items

Objective call is to work through punch list items.

Item 6

Comments: 

• It might be useful to think about thresholds. It is not directly CSC related. Risk of mischievous complaints, possible way to deal with those, frivolous 
  complaints. This is DT M issue

• Threshold interesting thought

Item 11

Comments:

• Expression of Interest to ccNSO/GNSO (RySG). If only one place, need for  judgement call.
• Need to understand: ccTLD issue, ccNSO need to approves, but this does not imply ccTLD outside ccNSo could not apply.
• Focus is on .ARPA (no constituency). 
• Choice between parties if even number, may become an issue. 
• Alternative: the CSC can put out an request for expressions of interest to arpa, .edu, .gov , etc. Then the CSC can evaluate the expressions of interest and send to the RySG and ccNSO  for ratification
• Page 59: one additional TLD operator (small pool) . Advise of the CSC to community. 
• Concern: Mechanism does not work for the first time.
• 5 TLDs reps on CSC, potentially (2 CC and 2 GTLD), 5th non-members may 
• Revisit

Item 12

Comments:

• Add in accordance own rules and procedures (GNSO and ccNSO)

Item 13:

Comments

• Best Practice, replacement needs to be in palce, but definetely witin 3 months. 
• Ask ccNSO and GNSO what they think.
• Note that committee is small, one out may cause disbalance. 
• Alternatives: 
  •   appoint temporally replacement/appointment,
  •   no fundamental decisions
  •   only ratified by SO, lacking on CSC
• Expectation there are hardly formal votes. Only when it comes to formal voting, need for "full CSC"
• Draft charter provides for one month for replacement.
• Use standby as temporarily. replacement 

Item 14:

Comments

• Does Liaison need to be registry operator?

• Role of IFR is predominantly technical. The person from CSC needs to be able to brief the IFT of operation of PTI (hence technical role, and 
  most likely registry operator)

• Small group, and hence internal decision making process., will most likely right person.
• CSC to decide the liaison, ensure technical liaison with technical knowledge (therfore rep of Regitry operator)

Item 15

Comments

• Risk of overregualting if thsi is prescribed at thsi stage. For committee to decide in consultation with PTI
• To be clear: PTI and NOT PTI board

Item 16

Comments

• Special review relates to reveiw of IFR.

• This if for the ccNSO and GNSO (Councils ) to work on. Alternative ways of dealing with problems, hence no prescriptive process for special review or alternative processes/action. 

Item 17 - 20

Comments

• Items not in scope DT C

• Remark: item 17 not really understood. 
• question: what is role of CSC, if all important topics are in contract between ICANN and PTI?

• This may part to discussion of whether CSC is part of ICANN or not. Need to anchor down PTI, question where and how to do it.

• Serious concern around roe of CSC in context of escalation. At this stage no concern CSC or IFR are in ICANN, but enforcability is though ICANN ( contract between ICANN and PTI). CSC and IFR propose and produce reports. Other needs to take action

• Question lawyers is where to nest enforceability.

Item 21

Comments

• Concern DT M may 

Item 22

Comments

• Discretionary for CSC initially. CSC is put in to understand when action is needed. At some point it is up to CSC to escalate. Members of CSC will 
  reaching out to wider world. 
• Risk of over-definition. There is an escalation path, communication path. 
• Suggestion to include thresholds or targets (objective) not determined by  CSC
• Link with item 15,
• What is systemic issue?
• Link with remedial action: it is not taken, or does not resolve the problem. 
• Recognition it will be subjective

Item 23

Comments:

• Individual remediation not a role of CSC
• Agreed

Item 37

Comments

• Relates to accountability work

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (5/8/2015 08:32) Good Day and Welcome to the DT-C Meeting on 8 May at 14:00 UTC.

  Martin Boyle: (08:51) Hi all!

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:52) Hi Martin

  Martin Boyle: (08:53) Hi Bart:  all well?

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:54) Yes thank you , and with you?

  Martin Boyle: (08:54) Sort of

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:55) Morning Martin

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:56) and to you to Brenda

  Brenda Brewer: (08:56) HI all!

  Martin Boyle: (08:56) How come Bart rang me?  And then the line dropped...

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:57) The document is scollable for all

  Martin Boyle: (08:57) OK:  he just rang me again

  Martin Boyle: (08:57) Hope it doesn't keep crashing like that...

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:57) Strange

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (08:57) thanks

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:58) I had no intention to call you

  Bart Boswinkel: (08:58) (nor anybody else;-)

  Martin Boyle: (08:58) No, I think it was the call out

  Brenda Brewer: (08:59) It is our audio vendor operator calling you Martin.  Not sure why your line dropped.  He will keep an eye on your line and call you if you become disconnected again.

  Martin Boyle: (08:59) but I never heard the operator

  Grace Abuhamad: (08:59) they have a recording of Bart's voice :)

  Martin Boyle: (08:59) just suddenlt Bart's dulcit tones

  Martin Boyle: (08:59) Ah-he's famous!

  Bart Boswinkel: (09:00) Fortunat efor you I uses my "nice" voice

  Martin Boyle: (09:00) sorry Donna?  what did you just say?

  Sarah Falvey - RySG: (09:01) I am only going to be on adobe connect today

  Staffan Jonson: (09:01) Hello all

  Martin Boyle: (09:01) can now

  Martin Boyle: (09:02) he's not joking

  Martin Boyle: (09:03) yup

  Kurt: (09:12) To make the process simpler – the CSC can put out an request for expressions of interest to arpa, .edu, .gov , etc. Then the CSC can evaluate the expressions of interest and send to the RySG and ccNSO  for ratification

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:13) would you need both to approve all recommendations

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:13) ?

  Kurt: (09:15) if there are more than one expression - take the expressions of interest and rotate them through one-year terms

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (09:16) just joined

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (09:16) sorry to be late

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:18) @Bart +1

  Martin Boyle: (09:18) Agree Donna as amended by Bart

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:22) Yes, as amended by Bart, for me to

  Kurt: (09:22) The work of IANA will go on regardless of whether the CSC is fully staffed -

  Kurt: (09:23) I would get to the ccNSO and GNSO agree to a one month replacement cycle - even if not enforceable, I think the organizations will try to live up to that commitment

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:23) Agree with this reasoning

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:24) +1

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:25) +1

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:25) Yes, reasonable

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:25) old hand

  Kurt: (09:26) They could have a replacement in waiting

  Kurt: (09:26) then it would happen overnight

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:26) Had the same thought as Kurt

  Martin Boyle: (09:27) because this is such an attractive role

  Kurt: (09:27) if Miss America cannot carry out her term....

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:27) me to, a standby is a reasonable solution

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:27) If they are going through the process of selecting one why not at the same time select

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:28) Just a suggestion

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:28) 14: decided preferrably within the five of CSC

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:28) does not need to modify the chartrer now

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:29) old hand

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:31) @Staffan +1

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:32) I believe tehcnical skills and experience will decide what member to send to IFR

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (09:32) that sounds right to me donna

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:33) yup

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:34) 15: yes agree as well

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (09:35) +1

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:35) +1

  Martin Boyle: (09:35) yep

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:35) yes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:36) yes

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:38) @MB +1

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (09:40) +1

  Kurt: (09:43) third party beneficiary?

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:44) Exactly! So is CSC internal to ICANN or Not?

  Staffan Jonson 2: (09:45) CSC and PTI need to have an independent from ICANN role

  Kurt: (09:48) maybe the way to go about it is - for this group to decide what it want in terms of accountability on the part if IANA and ICANN and let the lawyers figure it out

  Kurt: (09:48) IANA has a duty to perform to its custoemers

  Kurt: (09:49) our job here is to figure out what we want and let the lawyers figure out hot to accomplish that

  Martin Boyle: (09:49) and so that is organisational - which is fine.  So long as CSC does not get a direct say in enforcement

  Martin Boyle: (09:51) and ccNSO and RySG, too, Donna

  Martin Boyle: (09:51) And this is a process discussion

  Kurt: (09:54) On 21 - I think an IRP takes too long

  Kurt: (09:55) On 22: a systemic problem should be defined by x number of uncured faults: the number to be determined by a negtiation between ICANN and the CSC

  Kurt: (09:55) it should be as objective as possible

  Martin Boyle: (09:58) @Kurt:  too detailed

  Martin Boyle: (09:58) uncured trivial faults

  Martin Boyle: (09:59) Unresolved tough cctld re-delegations

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (10:03) +1

  Staffan Jonson: (10:05) Yes Martin. Thank You . Defining systemic problem etc. is a way forward...

  Kurt: (10:06) @ Martin - the process could take into account trivial breaches - it can be thought out - if there isn't an objective standard the process will become political rather than performance driven

  Staffan Jonson: (10:06) Definitions are fur us to understand what we mean. Afterwards, CSC should be given discretion.

  Kurt: (10:06) can also take into account long redelegation processes

  Martin Boyle: (10:08) But I do not like something as clear as that.

  Kurt: (10:08) We can use the Milton Mueller standard: things are not so great, it MAY be time to change providers, let's have an RFP.

  Martin Boyle: (10:08) A lot of this will be subjective

  Martin Boyle: (10:08) And needs to be seen as impact on customers

  Martin Boyle: (10:10) Yay!

  Stephanie Duchesneau: (10:10) so happy!

  Staffan Jonson: (10:10) Of course!

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (10:10) ecstatic

  Bernard Turcotte - staff support: (10:11) bye all

  Staffan Jonson: (10:11) Thank You all

  Martin Boyle: (10:11) Great, thanks