Fwd: FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Sorry, just noticed that reply all dropped off the mailing list address, now remedied. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:
From: "Martin Boyle" <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> Date: 27 November 2018 at 22:32:39 GMT To: "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, "'Debbie Monahan'" <debbie@internetnz.net.nz>, "'Maria Otanes'" <maria.otanes@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi all,
I’ve added some comments on Donna’s marked-up version.
Thanks
Martin
From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-EffectivenessRT Sent: 27 November 2018 19:23 To: Debbie Monahan <debbie@internetnz.net.nz>; Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi All
I’ve made some comments and changes.
Debbie, I’ve tried to address your issue re attendance of liaisons.
Donna
From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 PM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi Maria
My only comment was around whether we needed the metric around the liaisons as there isn’t a formal measure as such for them. I was wondering if we added the comment about them to the one about the members. Something like ‘it was noted that while there had been no issues with the attendance of members it had been noted that not all liaisons attended regularly.’ So essentially similar wording to what you had but as part of what is something that should be measured.
Cheers Debbie
On 27/11/2018, at 04:25, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In prep for Wednesday’s Effectiveness Review Team call, could you please provide any comments on the matrix if you have any?
Thanks, Ria
From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all,
Friendly reminder, please complete the Doodle poll if you haven’t done so already.
https://doodle.com/poll/xsm3gp23fwigprqe
Please also let us know if you have any comments on the consolidated matrix attached.
Thanks, Ria
From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all, Please find included: the notes from yesterday’s call. the updated schedule ( includes a public comment period ending 8 February), and submission of final report by 25 February. There is a little slack ( explained in text) of 2 weeks, however note the Final report needs to be submitted by the Councils. Updated version Assessment matrix. The changes have been highlighted in yellow
Staff will send out a Doodle poll for a call on Wednesday 29 November ( 18.00 or 19.00 UTC).
Please look at the updated Assessment Matrix and provide additional comments on-line over the next week. Please also provide comments/ feed-back on proposed outline for report (see below)
Draft Outline Report Executive Summary Introduction and reading guide To include reference to need for review and potential overlap with IFRT and Template for the review as adopted by ccNSO and GNSO Method of review ( refer to section in template) Reference to Final Report CSC Charter review. This review builds on main (undisputed conclusions and findings) of the Charter review team. Introduce Assessment matrix i.e assessment of effectiveness of CSC by reference to activities listed in the charter. Findings within scope Assessment matrix Findings, if any outside of scope of this review Recommendations Description of process Annex A: template for review as adopted Annex B: Members RT and liaisons
Kind regards, Bart
<Update CSC Effectiveness Assessment_Matrix-15 November 2018.docx><Update Review Schedule version 2.docx><Informal Notes CSC 14 November 2018.docx>_______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt
I have some concerns about the language and meaning of 7. CSC has an effective process for tracking complaints that have been escalated to PTI Management (Escalations), and CSC Members can be directly informed of individual complaints by email. In accordance with the CSC Charter, the “… CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA Naming Function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a direct dispute between any registry operator and the IANA Functions Operator. The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether there are any patterns of poor performance by the IANA Functions Operator in responding to complaints of a similar nature…” The CSC does not currently have a documented procedure for receiving complaints about IANA (PTI) from individual registry operators, but members of the CSC did acknowledge that on occasionthey individually received complaints from registry operators. CSC members generally inform each other when this occurs, but not in any formal way. It is recommended that this be remedied by publishing a procedure on the CSC webpage, along with an email address for submitting complaints. In the event that individual members or liaisons of the CSC receive individual complaints, they should encourage those making the complaint by doing so via the email address. During the monthly meeting, the CSC asks PTI if there have been anyE scalations. That information is included in the CSC Monthly report. In addition the CSC Webpage includes includes a link to general Customer IANA Service Complaint Resolution Process Not achieved Specifically The perceived meaning of the words “can” and “may” ... The CSC “May” recieve complaints because someone that has a complaint against PTI “May” also happen to send that complaint to one of the members. We are not meant to receive those complaints as part of the normal process for PTI service issues. So the use of the words “can be directly informed” is incorrect. We might be directly informed. The CSC charter excludes the CSC members from actioning any individual complaint. Our role is to give instructions to the complainant about how/where to send their complaint. We are also supposed to track individual complaints as PTI makes us aware of them, with an eye to systematic problems. If this information doesn’t align with your understanding of our role we should discuss further. As it is currently written I think there is a misunderstanding of what CSC is supposed to do with complaints. Thanks Elaine On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Martin Boyle via CSC-EffectivenessRT < csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> wrote:
Sorry, just noticed that reply all dropped off the mailing list address, now remedied.
Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* "Martin Boyle" <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> *Date:* 27 November 2018 at 22:32:39 GMT *To:* "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, "'Debbie Monahan'" < debbie@internetnz.net.nz>, "'Maria Otanes'" <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Subject:* *RE: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix*
Hi all,
I’ve added some comments on Donna’s marked-up version.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna via CSC-EffectivenessRT *Sent:* 27 November 2018 19:23 *To:* Debbie Monahan <debbie@internetnz.net.nz>; Maria Otanes < maria.otanes@icann.org>
*Cc:* csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi All
I’ve made some comments and changes.
Debbie, I’ve tried to address your issue re attendance of liaisons.
Donna
*From:* CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Debbie Monahan *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 PM *To:* Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Cc:* csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi Maria
My only comment was around whether we needed the metric around the liaisons as there isn’t a formal measure as such for them. I was wondering if we added the comment about them to the one about the members. Something like ‘it was noted that while there had been no issues with the attendance of members it had been noted that not all liaisons attended regularly.’ So essentially similar wording to what you had but as part of what is something that should be measured.
Cheers
Debbie
On 27/11/2018, at 04:25, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In prep for Wednesday’s Effectiveness Review Team call, could you please provide any comments on the matrix if you have any?
Thanks,
Ria
*From: *CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM *To: *"csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> *Subject: *[CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all,
Friendly reminder, please complete the Doodle poll if you haven’t done so already.
https://doodle.com/poll/xsm3gp23fwigprqe <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_poll_xsm3gp2...>
Please also let us know if you have any comments on the consolidated matrix attached.
Thanks,
Ria
*From: *CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM *To: *"csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> *Subject: *[CSC-EffectivenessRT] Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all,
Please find included:
- the notes from yesterday’s call. - the updated schedule ( includes a public comment period ending 8 February), and submission of final report by 25 February. There is a little slack ( explained in text) of 2 weeks, however note the Final report needs to be submitted by the Councils. - Updated version Assessment matrix. The changes have been highlighted in yellow
Staff will send out a Doodle poll for a call on Wednesday 29 November ( 18.00 or 19.00 UTC).
Please look at the updated Assessment Matrix and provide additional comments on-line over the next week.
Please also provide comments/ feed-back on proposed outline for report (see below)
Draft Outline Report
1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction and reading guide
1. To include reference to need for review and potential overlap with IFRT and Template for the review as adopted by ccNSO and GNSO
1. Method of review ( refer to section in template)
1. Reference to Final Report CSC Charter review. This review builds on main (undisputed conclusions and findings) of the Charter review team. 2. Introduce Assessment matrix i.e assessment of effectiveness of CSC by reference to activities listed in the charter.
1. Findings within scope
1. Assessment matrix
1. Findings, if any outside of scope of this review 2. Recommendations 3. Description of process
Annex A: template for review as adopted
Annex B: Members RT and liaisons
Kind regards,
Bart
<Update CSC Effectiveness Assessment_Matrix-15 November 2018.docx><Update Review Schedule version 2.docx><Informal Notes CSC 14 November 2018.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt
Hi Elaine I think we do need to have a discussion about this as I do believe there might be some misunderstanding. I believe the intent was (and Martin please correct me if I’m wrong) that registry operators should be able to come to the CSC and raise concerns about IANA/PTI performance that was separate from the complaints process that is available through IANA. We may need to dig back through the bowels of the CSC Drafting Team to confirm, but I think it was always the intent that customers of PTI had another avenue to voice concerns about PTI performance directly with the CSC. The ‘however’ clause was to guard against the CSC doing the work of IANA/PTI, but not to stop the CSC from being able to receive complaints separately. Thanks Donna From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elaine Pruis Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:34 PM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Fwd: FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix I have some concerns about the language and meaning of 7. CSC has an effective process for tracking complaints that have been escalated to PTI Management (Escalations), and CSC Members can be directly informed of individual complaints by email. In accordance with the CSC Charter, the “… CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA Naming Function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a direct dispute between any registry operator and the IANA Functions Operator. The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether there are any patterns of poor performance by the IANA Functions Operator in responding to complaints of a similar nature…” The CSC does not currently have a documented procedure for receiving complaints about IANA (PTI) from individual registry operators, but members of the CSC did acknowledge that on occasionthey individually received complaints from registry operators. CSC members generally inform each other when this occurs, but not in any formal way. It is recommended that this be remedied by publishing a procedure on the CSC webpage, along with an email address for submitting complaints. In the event that individual members or liaisons of the CSC receive individual complaints, they should encourage those making the complaint by doing so via the email address. During the monthly meeting, the CSC asks PTI if there have been anyEscalations. That information is included in the CSC Monthly report. In addition the CSC Webpage includes includes a link to general Customer IANA Service Complaint Resolution Process Not achieved Specifically The perceived meaning of the words “can” and “may” ... The CSC “May” recieve complaints because someone that has a complaint against PTI “May” also happen to send that complaint to one of the members. We are not meant to receive those complaints as part of the normal process for PTI service issues. So the use of the words “can be directly informed” is incorrect. We might be directly informed. The CSC charter excludes the CSC members from actioning any individual complaint. Our role is to give instructions to the complainant about how/where to send their complaint. We are also supposed to track individual complaints as PTI makes us aware of them, with an eye to systematic problems. If this information doesn’t align with your understanding of our role we should discuss further. As it is currently written I think there is a misunderstanding of what CSC is supposed to do with complaints. Thanks Elaine On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Martin Boyle via CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> wrote: Sorry, just noticed that reply all dropped off the mailing list address, now remedied. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Martin Boyle" <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Date: 27 November 2018 at 22:32:39 GMT To: "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>, "'Debbie Monahan'" <debbie@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:debbie@internetnz.net.nz>>, "'Maria Otanes'" <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi all, I’ve added some comments on Donna’s marked-up version. Thanks Martin From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-EffectivenessRT Sent: 27 November 2018 19:23 To: Debbie Monahan <debbie@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:debbie@internetnz.net.nz>>; Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi All I’ve made some comments and changes. Debbie, I’ve tried to address your issue re attendance of liaisons. Donna From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 PM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi Maria My only comment was around whether we needed the metric around the liaisons as there isn’t a formal measure as such for them. I was wondering if we added the comment about them to the one about the members. Something like ‘it was noted that while there had been no issues with the attendance of members it had been noted that not all liaisons attended regularly.’ So essentially similar wording to what you had but as part of what is something that should be measured. Cheers Debbie On 27/11/2018, at 04:25, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, In prep for Wednesday’s Effectiveness Review Team call, could you please provide any comments on the matrix if you have any? Thanks, Ria From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Dear all, Friendly reminder, please complete the Doodle poll if you haven’t done so already. https://doodle.com/poll/xsm3gp23fwigprqe<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_poll_xsm3gp23fwigprqe&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=XjraDxeysAWMMiaWEadNS7y3jFHgKgsNp22XgY73RTY&s=zNWc6snTCp8fgqSOQEr57liSxx1vblWcZGIMfslIsAk&e=> Please also let us know if you have any comments on the consolidated matrix attached. Thanks, Ria From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Dear all, Please find included: * the notes from yesterday’s call. * the updated schedule ( includes a public comment period ending 8 February), and submission of final report by 25 February. There is a little slack ( explained in text) of 2 weeks, however note the Final report needs to be submitted by the Councils. * Updated version Assessment matrix. The changes have been highlighted in yellow Staff will send out a Doodle poll for a call on Wednesday 29 November ( 18.00 or 19.00 UTC). Please look at the updated Assessment Matrix and provide additional comments on-line over the next week. Please also provide comments/ feed-back on proposed outline for report (see below) Draft Outline Report 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction and reading guide * To include reference to need for review and potential overlap with IFRT and Template for the review as adopted by ccNSO and GNSO 1. Method of review ( refer to section in template) * Reference to Final Report CSC Charter review. This review builds on main (undisputed conclusions and findings) of the Charter review team. * Introduce Assessment matrix i.e assessment of effectiveness of CSC by reference to activities listed in the charter. 1. Findings within scope * Assessment matrix 1. Findings, if any outside of scope of this review 2. Recommendations 3. Description of process Annex A: template for review as adopted Annex B: Members RT and liaisons Kind regards, Bart <Update CSC Effectiveness Assessment_Matrix-15 November 2018.docx><Update Review Schedule version 2.docx><Informal Notes CSC 14 November 2018.docx>_______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org<mailto:CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Deffectivenessrt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=XjraDxeysAWMMiaWEadNS7y3jFHgKgsNp22XgY73RTY&s=aXorbVz64j8iZ5gMBD7bUYEa2rf5jpDaRVREBdrWCwk&e=> _______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org<mailto:CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Deffectivenessrt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=9oJHPvtOI7vFwGU1-EZSVJM22Fkb5cnhD1MU8xN2wDU&s=zh1JQ0eNHCKxxSRXhH_J6LKstDMCLfqnr-WO-RPYEUg&e=>
Thanks for the reply Donna. The CSC (right or wrong) has interpreted it differently. I just checked in with Allan to make sure I'm not remembering things incorrectly. He says: "The CSC may ‘receive’ complaints but may not become involved in their resolution. They are only to be informed so that they might determine whether there are any patterns or persistent behaviors. The CSC deals with this issue by requesting that PTI report to it on any ‘escalations’ (effectively formal complaints that have not been immediately resolved) that it receives. The Effectiveness review team may suggest that the CSC put some information on its website so that it might ‘receive’ the complaints. I don’t think that the community would be well served by this as it would *create the assumption that the CSC will deal with individual complaints*, when it can’t. " I'll be glad to discuss further to make sure we're performing our functions (according to the charter and bylaws) correctly. Elaine On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:39 AM Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote:
Hi Elaine
I think we do need to have a discussion about this as I do believe there might be some misunderstanding.
I believe the intent was (and Martin please correct me if I’m wrong) that registry operators should be able to come to the CSC and raise concerns about IANA/PTI performance that was separate from the complaints process that is available through IANA.
We may need to dig back through the bowels of the CSC Drafting Team to confirm, but I think it was always the intent that customers of PTI had another avenue to voice concerns about PTI performance directly with the CSC. The ‘however’ clause was to guard against the CSC doing the work of IANA/PTI, but not to stop the CSC from being able to receive complaints separately.
Thanks
Donna
*From:* CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Elaine Pruis *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:34 PM *To:* Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> *Cc:* csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Fwd: FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
I have some concerns about the language and meaning of 7.
CSC has an effective process for tracking complaints that have been escalated to PTI Management (Escalations), and CSC Members can be directly informed of individual complaints by email.
In accordance with the CSC Charter, the “… CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA Naming Function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a direct dispute between any registry operator and the IANA Functions Operator.
The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether there are any patterns of poor performance by the IANA Functions Operator in responding to complaints of a similar nature…”
The CSC does not currently have a documented procedure for receiving complaints about IANA (PTI) from individual registry operators, but members of the CSC did acknowledge that on occasionthey individually received complaints from registry operators. CSC members generally inform each other when this occurs, but not in any formal way. It is recommended that this be remedied by publishing a procedure on the CSC webpage, along with an email address for submitting complaints. In the event that individual members or liaisons of the CSC receive individual complaints, they should encourage those making the complaint by doing so via the email address.
During the monthly meeting, the CSC asks PTI if there have been anyEscalations. That information is included in the CSC Monthly report.
In addition the CSC Webpage includes includes a link to general Customer IANA Service Complaint Resolution Process
Not achieved
Specifically The perceived meaning of the words “can” and “may” ...
The CSC “May” recieve complaints because someone that has a complaint against PTI “May” also happen to send that complaint to one of the members.
We are not meant to receive those complaints as part of the normal process for PTI service issues. So the use of the words “can be directly informed” is incorrect. We might be directly informed.
The CSC charter excludes the CSC members from actioning any individual complaint. Our role is to give instructions to the complainant about how/where to send their complaint.
We are also supposed to track individual complaints as PTI makes us aware of them, with an eye to systematic problems.
If this information doesn’t align with your understanding of our role we should discuss further.
As it is currently written I think there is a misunderstanding of what CSC is supposed to do with complaints.
Thanks
Elaine
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Martin Boyle via CSC-EffectivenessRT < csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> wrote:
Sorry, just noticed that reply all dropped off the mailing list address, now remedied.
Martin Boyle
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* "Martin Boyle" <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> *Date:* 27 November 2018 at 22:32:39 GMT *To:* "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, "'Debbie Monahan'" < debbie@internetnz.net.nz>, "'Maria Otanes'" <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Subject:* *RE: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix*
Hi all,
I’ve added some comments on Donna’s marked-up version.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna via CSC-EffectivenessRT *Sent:* 27 November 2018 19:23 *To:* Debbie Monahan <debbie@internetnz.net.nz>; Maria Otanes < maria.otanes@icann.org>
*Cc:* csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi All
I’ve made some comments and changes.
Debbie, I’ve tried to address your issue re attendance of liaisons.
Donna
*From:* CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Debbie Monahan *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 PM *To:* Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Cc:* csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Hi Maria
My only comment was around whether we needed the metric around the liaisons as there isn’t a formal measure as such for them. I was wondering if we added the comment about them to the one about the members. Something like ‘it was noted that while there had been no issues with the attendance of members it had been noted that not all liaisons attended regularly.’ So essentially similar wording to what you had but as part of what is something that should be measured.
Cheers
Debbie
On 27/11/2018, at 04:25, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In prep for Wednesday’s Effectiveness Review Team call, could you please provide any comments on the matrix if you have any?
Thanks,
Ria
*From: *CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM *To: *"csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> *Subject: *[CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all,
Friendly reminder, please complete the Doodle poll if you haven’t done so already.
https://doodle.com/poll/xsm3gp23fwigprqe <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_poll_xsm3gp2...>
Please also let us know if you have any comments on the consolidated matrix attached.
Thanks,
Ria
*From: *CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM *To: *"csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> *Subject: *[CSC-EffectivenessRT] Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix
Dear all,
Please find included:
- the notes from yesterday’s call. - the updated schedule ( includes a public comment period ending 8 February), and submission of final report by 25 February. There is a little slack ( explained in text) of 2 weeks, however note the Final report needs to be submitted by the Councils. - Updated version Assessment matrix. The changes have been highlighted in yellow
Staff will send out a Doodle poll for a call on Wednesday 29 November ( 18.00 or 19.00 UTC).
Please look at the updated Assessment Matrix and provide additional comments on-line over the next week.
Please also provide comments/ feed-back on proposed outline for report (see below)
Draft Outline Report
1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction and reading guide
1. To include reference to need for review and potential overlap with IFRT and Template for the review as adopted by ccNSO and GNSO
1. Method of review ( refer to section in template)
1. Reference to Final Report CSC Charter review. This review builds on main (undisputed conclusions and findings) of the Charter review team. 2. Introduce Assessment matrix i.e assessment of effectiveness of CSC by reference to activities listed in the charter.
1. Findings within scope
1. Assessment matrix
1. Findings, if any outside of scope of this review 2. Recommendations 3. Description of process
Annex A: template for review as adopted
Annex B: Members RT and liaisons
Kind regards,
Bart
<Update CSC Effectiveness Assessment_Matrix-15 November 2018.docx><Update Review Schedule version 2.docx><Informal Notes CSC 14 November 2018.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Hi Elaine I can understand how it could be misinterpreted. If memory serves correctly, this was part of a larger complex discussion about accountability mechanisms. I’m more than happy to discuss. Donna From: Elaine Pruis [mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 12:45 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Fwd: FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Thanks for the reply Donna. The CSC (right or wrong) has interpreted it differently. I just checked in with Allan to make sure I'm not remembering things incorrectly. He says: "The CSC may ‘receive’ complaints but may not become involved in their resolution. They are only to be informed so that they might determine whether there are any patterns or persistent behaviors. The CSC deals with this issue by requesting that PTI report to it on any ‘escalations’ (effectively formal complaints that have not been immediately resolved) that it receives. The Effectiveness review team may suggest that the CSC put some information on its website so that it might ‘receive’ the complaints. I don’t think that the community would be well served by this as it would create the assumption that the CSC will deal with individual complaints, when it can’t. " I'll be glad to discuss further to make sure we're performing our functions (according to the charter and bylaws) correctly. Elaine On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:39 AM Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> wrote: Hi Elaine I think we do need to have a discussion about this as I do believe there might be some misunderstanding. I believe the intent was (and Martin please correct me if I’m wrong) that registry operators should be able to come to the CSC and raise concerns about IANA/PTI performance that was separate from the complaints process that is available through IANA. We may need to dig back through the bowels of the CSC Drafting Team to confirm, but I think it was always the intent that customers of PTI had another avenue to voice concerns about PTI performance directly with the CSC. The ‘however’ clause was to guard against the CSC doing the work of IANA/PTI, but not to stop the CSC from being able to receive complaints separately. Thanks Donna From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Elaine Pruis Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:34 PM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Fwd: FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix I have some concerns about the language and meaning of 7. CSC has an effective process for tracking complaints that have been escalated to PTI Management (Escalations), and CSC Members can be directly informed of individual complaints by email. In accordance with the CSC Charter, the “… CSC may receive complaints from individual registry operators regarding the performance of the IANA Naming Function; however, the CSC will not become involved in a direct dispute between any registry operator and the IANA Functions Operator. The CSC will review individual complaints with a view to identifying whether there are any patterns of poor performance by the IANA Functions Operator in responding to complaints of a similar nature…” The CSC does not currently have a documented procedure for receiving complaints about IANA (PTI) from individual registry operators, but members of the CSC did acknowledge that on occasionthey individually received complaints from registry operators. CSC members generally inform each other when this occurs, but not in any formal way. It is recommended that this be remedied by publishing a procedure on the CSC webpage, along with an email address for submitting complaints. In the event that individual members or liaisons of the CSC receive individual complaints, they should encourage those making the complaint by doing so via the email address. During the monthly meeting, the CSC asks PTI if there have been anyEscalations. That information is included in the CSC Monthly report. In addition the CSC Webpage includes includes a link to general Customer IANA Service Complaint Resolution Process Not achieved Specifically The perceived meaning of the words “can” and “may” ... The CSC “May” recieve complaints because someone that has a complaint against PTI “May” also happen to send that complaint to one of the members. We are not meant to receive those complaints as part of the normal process for PTI service issues. So the use of the words “can be directly informed” is incorrect. We might be directly informed. The CSC charter excludes the CSC members from actioning any individual complaint. Our role is to give instructions to the complainant about how/where to send their complaint. We are also supposed to track individual complaints as PTI makes us aware of them, with an eye to systematic problems. If this information doesn’t align with your understanding of our role we should discuss further. As it is currently written I think there is a misunderstanding of what CSC is supposed to do with complaints. Thanks Elaine On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Martin Boyle via CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> wrote: Sorry, just noticed that reply all dropped off the mailing list address, now remedied. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Martin Boyle" <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Date: 27 November 2018 at 22:32:39 GMT To: "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>, "'Debbie Monahan'" <debbie@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:debbie@internetnz.net.nz>>, "'Maria Otanes'" <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi all, I’ve added some comments on Donna’s marked-up version. Thanks Martin From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-EffectivenessRT Sent: 27 November 2018 19:23 To: Debbie Monahan <debbie@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:debbie@internetnz.net.nz>>; Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi All I’ve made some comments and changes. Debbie, I’ve tried to address your issue re attendance of liaisons. Donna From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 10:49 PM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Cc: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Hi Maria My only comment was around whether we needed the metric around the liaisons as there isn’t a formal measure as such for them. I was wondering if we added the comment about them to the one about the members. Something like ‘it was noted that while there had been no issues with the attendance of members it had been noted that not all liaisons attended regularly.’ So essentially similar wording to what you had but as part of what is something that should be measured. Cheers Debbie On 27/11/2018, at 04:25, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, In prep for Wednesday’s Effectiveness Review Team call, could you please provide any comments on the matrix if you have any? Thanks, Ria From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Date: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:18 PM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] FW: Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Dear all, Friendly reminder, please complete the Doodle poll if you haven’t done so already. https://doodle.com/poll/xsm3gp23fwigprqe<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doodle.com_poll_xsm3gp23fwigprqe&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=XjraDxeysAWMMiaWEadNS7y3jFHgKgsNp22XgY73RTY&s=zNWc6snTCp8fgqSOQEr57liSxx1vblWcZGIMfslIsAk&e=> Please also let us know if you have any comments on the consolidated matrix attached. Thanks, Ria From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM To: "csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>" <csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org<mailto:csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org>> Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] Notes, updated version Schedule and Assessment Matrix Dear all, Please find included: * the notes from yesterday’s call. * the updated schedule ( includes a public comment period ending 8 February), and submission of final report by 25 February. There is a little slack ( explained in text) of 2 weeks, however note the Final report needs to be submitted by the Councils. * Updated version Assessment matrix. The changes have been highlighted in yellow Staff will send out a Doodle poll for a call on Wednesday 29 November ( 18.00 or 19.00 UTC). Please look at the updated Assessment Matrix and provide additional comments on-line over the next week. Please also provide comments/ feed-back on proposed outline for report (see below) Draft Outline Report 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction and reading guide * To include reference to need for review and potential overlap with IFRT and Template for the review as adopted by ccNSO and GNSO 1. Method of review ( refer to section in template) * Reference to Final Report CSC Charter review. This review builds on main (undisputed conclusions and findings) of the Charter review team. * Introduce Assessment matrix i.e assessment of effectiveness of CSC by reference to activities listed in the charter. 1. Findings within scope * Assessment matrix 1. Findings, if any outside of scope of this review 2. Recommendations 3. Description of process Annex A: template for review as adopted Annex B: Members RT and liaisons Kind regards, Bart <Update CSC Effectiveness Assessment_Matrix-15 November 2018.docx><Update Review Schedule version 2.docx><Informal Notes CSC 14 November 2018.docx>_______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org<mailto:CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Deffectivenessrt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=XjraDxeysAWMMiaWEadNS7y3jFHgKgsNp22XgY73RTY&s=aXorbVz64j8iZ5gMBD7bUYEa2rf5jpDaRVREBdrWCwk&e=> _______________________________________________ CSC-EffectivenessRT mailing list CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org<mailto:CSC-EffectivenessRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-effectivenessrt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Deffectivenessrt&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=9oJHPvtOI7vFwGU1-EZSVJM22Fkb5cnhD1MU8xN2wDU&s=zh1JQ0eNHCKxxSRXhH_J6LKstDMCLfqnr-WO-RPYEUg&e=>
participants (3)
-
Austin, Donna -
Elaine Pruis -
Martin Boyle