April 2018 - CSC-Review - lists.icann.org

PLS REVIEW: Final version Initial report
by Austin, Donna April 6, 2018

April 6, 2018

Thanks Bart. It would be great if we could all take the time to review and confirm via email that we are happy with the report prepared by Bart. Thanks everyone, it would be great to get this posted on Monday. Donna From: CSC-Review [mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 9:48 AM To: CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report Dear all, Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication. Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections. Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section: The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] RE: The Amended Charter--two remaining questions.
by Bart Boswinkel April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Hi Donna, I will have to draft the open public forum document And set timelines etc. This is on my to -do list for today Bart From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Wednesday 4 April 2018 at 19:28 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [CSC-Review] The Amended Charter--two remaining questions. Thanks Bart! So based on your information below, our Amended Charter is good to go. I assume we now need to focus on the text to accompany the posting of our report for public comment. Is this something you have already started to think about? Donna From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:39 AM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CSC-Review] The Amended Charter--two remaining questions. Donna, all, See inserted comment re your first question Thanks to everyone for efforts in pulling this together. Martin, I accepted most of your edits but not all. I have two remaining questions on the Charter that I’d appreciate feedback on. The SLA Change Procedure The language that we’ve included in the Charter (based on text suggested by Bart and Elaine) says that procedures will be developed. The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service level/s. The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators about proposed changes shall always be required; however, the type of service level change will determine whether it is necessary to conduct a community-wide consultation. The procedures may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers. I thought the procedures had been developed and we intended to state this in the Charter and reference the procedures in the same way we reference the RAPs. Can you please confirm your recollection of what we agreed. BB Comment: this section now mandates the CSC to develop the procedures (which they have done). Once the charter is in place the procedures as developed will become effective in accordance with the above mechanism. CSC Consultations I’m a little confused about this section of the Charter. The CSC will, as need demands, conduct consultations with the IANA Functions Operator, meet with the direct customers of the naming services, and the ICANN community about the performance of the IANA Functions Operator. It potentially overlaps with the PTI Customer Survey and it may also overlap with the requirement for providing updates to direct customers under the meeting section. I’ve a mind to delete it but I want the agreement of everyone before I do so. Elaine, based on the comments we received from the CSC early on it does seem that the CSC has interpreted this to be associated with the customer survey in some way but I’d appreciate your feedback on whether this has been an issue fr the CSC. BB Comment: In December 2017 the RT discussed with CSC the need for these (additional) consultations. This was noted as follow: Slide 7. Focused Scope Byron: bullet on feed-back. PTI has proactively feedback, in charter there are elements CSC needs to do, for example consult community, and this drove interaction with PTI on survey. IANA survey is a customer survey. Beneficial and better document role. CSC input in survey better documented in charter. For CSC the survey provides opportunity to seek additional input and feedback, and is part of the remit of the CSC. Q: when results come back, does CSC look at result? Feed-back is important data-point to understand relation of customer with PTI. See also link with Function contract: The IANA Naming Function also requires PTI to consult with the CSC on the survey. Quote from Section 3.e of the IANA Naming Function Contract says: "Customer Service Survey. In accordance with ICANN’s Bylaws, Contractor shall collaborate with the CSC and ICANN to maintain and enhance the annual customer service survey consistent with the performance standards for Root Zone Management. " The CSC will need ( if circumstances demand) the ability to consult with the direct customers (and others), which may or may not include a customer survey. Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin(a)team.neustar / Website: home.neustar[home.neustar] Follow Neustar: LinkedIn[linkedin.com] / Twitter[twitter.com] Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Most recent version of the Amended Charter
by Austin, Donna April 4, 2018

April 4, 2018

I'm really sorry everyone, but I attached the wrong version of the charter to the email I sent out yesterday. I meant to include this one. Donna From: CSC-Review [mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-Review Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:31 PM To: CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] The Amended Charter--two remaining questions. Thanks to everyone for efforts in pulling this together. Martin, I accepted most of your edits but not all. I have two remaining questions on the Charter that I'd appreciate feedback on. 1. The SLA Change Procedure The language that we've included in the Charter (based on text suggested by Bart and Elaine) says that procedures will be developed. The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service level/s. The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators about proposed changes shall always be required; however, the type of service level change will determine whether it is necessary to conduct a community-wide consultation. The procedures may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers. I thought the procedures had been developed and we intended to state this in the Charter and reference the procedures in the same way we reference the RAPs. Can you please confirm your recollection of what we agreed. 2. CSC Consultations I'm a little confused about this section of the Charter. The CSC will, as need demands, conduct consultations with the IANA Functions Operator, meet with the direct customers of the naming services, and the ICANN community about the performance of the IANA Functions Operator. It potentially overlaps with the PTI Customer Survey and it may also overlap with the requirement for providing updates to direct customers under the meeting section. I've a mind to delete it but I want the agreement of everyone before I do so. Elaine, based on the comments we received from the CSC early on it does seem that the CSC has interpreted this to be associated with the customer survey in some way but I'd appreciate your feedback on whether this has been an issue fr the CSC. Thanks Donna Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin@team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.home.neustar_&d=DwM…> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_compan…> / Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar…> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Re: [CSC-Review] The Amended Charter--two remaining questions.
by Bart Boswinkel April 4, 2018

April 4, 2018

Donna, all, See inserted comment re your first question Thanks to everyone for efforts in pulling this together. Martin, I accepted most of your edits but not all. I have two remaining questions on the Charter that I’d appreciate feedback on. The SLA Change Procedure The language that we’ve included in the Charter (based on text suggested by Bart and Elaine) says that procedures will be developed. The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service level/s. The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators about proposed changes shall always be required; however, the type of service level change will determine whether it is necessary to conduct a community-wide consultation. The procedures may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers. I thought the procedures had been developed and we intended to state this in the Charter and reference the procedures in the same way we reference the RAPs. Can you please confirm your recollection of what we agreed. BB Comment: this section now mandates the CSC to develop the procedures (which they have done). Once the charter is in place the procedures as developed will become effective in accordance with the above mechanism. CSC Consultations I’m a little confused about this section of the Charter. The CSC will, as need demands, conduct consultations with the IANA Functions Operator, meet with the direct customers of the naming services, and the ICANN community about the performance of the IANA Functions Operator. It potentially overlaps with the PTI Customer Survey and it may also overlap with the requirement for providing updates to direct customers under the meeting section. I’ve a mind to delete it but I want the agreement of everyone before I do so. Elaine, based on the comments we received from the CSC early on it does seem that the CSC has interpreted this to be associated with the customer survey in some way but I’d appreciate your feedback on whether this has been an issue fr the CSC. BB Comment: In December 2017 the RT discussed with CSC the need for these (additional) consultations. This was noted as follow: Slide 7. Focused Scope Byron: bullet on feed-back. PTI has proactively feedback, in charter there are elements CSC needs to do, for example consult community, and this drove interaction with PTI on survey. IANA survey is a customer survey. Beneficial and better document role. CSC input in survey better documented in charter. For CSC the survey provides opportunity to seek additional input and feedback, and is part of the remit of the CSC. Q: when results come back, does CSC look at result? Feed-back is important data-point to understand relation of customer with PTI. See also link with Function contract: The IANA Naming Function also requires PTI to consult with the CSC on the survey. Quote from Section 3.e of the IANA Naming Function Contract says: "Customer Service Survey. In accordance with ICANN’s Bylaws, Contractor shall collaborate with the CSC and ICANN to maintain and enhance the annual customer service survey consistent with the performance standards for Root Zone Management. " The CSC will need ( if circumstances demand) the ability to consult with the direct customers (and others), which may or may not include a customer survey. Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin(a)team.neustar / Website: home.neustar[home.neustar] Follow Neustar: LinkedIn[linkedin.com] / Twitter[twitter.com] Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

3 2

Next CSC Meeting: 16 April @ 20:00 UTC
by Maria Otanes April 4, 2018

April 4, 2018

Dear CSC Review Team, The next CSC regular monthly call will be held on Monday, 16 April at 20:00 UTC. Please let me know if you’d like to join the call to give the CSC an explanation of the amendments to the Charter. Thanks, Ria

3 2

The Amended Charter--two remaining questions.
by Austin, Donna April 3, 2018

April 3, 2018

Thanks to everyone for efforts in pulling this together. Martin, I accepted most of your edits but not all. I have two remaining questions on the Charter that I'd appreciate feedback on. 1. The SLA Change Procedure The language that we've included in the Charter (based on text suggested by Bart and Elaine) says that procedures will be developed. The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service level/s. The CSC, in consultation with the IANA Functions Operator, will develop procedures for changing service level/s including the removal of existing service levels or the inclusion of new service levels. These procedures will be commensurate with the type of the service level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators about proposed changes shall always be required; however, the type of service level change will determine whether it is necessary to conduct a community-wide consultation. The procedures may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers. I thought the procedures had been developed and we intended to state this in the Charter and reference the procedures in the same way we reference the RAPs. Can you please confirm your recollection of what we agreed. 2. CSC Consultations I'm a little confused about this section of the Charter. The CSC will, as need demands, conduct consultations with the IANA Functions Operator, meet with the direct customers of the naming services, and the ICANN community about the performance of the IANA Functions Operator. It potentially overlaps with the PTI Customer Survey and it may also overlap with the requirement for providing updates to direct customers under the meeting section. I've a mind to delete it but I want the agreement of everyone before I do so. Elaine, based on the comments we received from the CSC early on it does seem that the CSC has interpreted this to be associated with the customer survey in some way but I'd appreciate your feedback on whether this has been an issue fr the CSC. Thanks Donna Donna Austin Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions Mobile: +1 310 890 9655 donna.austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin@team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

Update on SLA changes
by Elaine Pruis April 3, 2018

April 3, 2018

Dear all, Following are notes and proposed text that Bart put together, and I've reviewed, to provide some context and background on the need to change the language in the charter with respect to amending Service Levels; The starting point is in the current charter in the Review section: “The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator 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 to by the ccNSO and GNSO.” Note 1. This section in the current charter is under the heading of Reviews, which may not be the most adequate location in the text. Changes result from monitoring the performance of PTI, and needs from the community ( for example adding SLAs for the IDN tables). Note 2. The section in the charter referenced above is first and foremost related to the service levels as defined in the IANA Naming Function Contract. There may be potential overlap with the section under the Scope of Responsibilities Donna mentioned in her email yesterday. However the CSC used the language in the Review section as a starting point for discussing and suggesting changes to the Service Levels As the Service Level targets are defined in the* IANA Naming Function Contract,* amending the service levels at first reading implies a change of the contract, which could be very heavy handed for most of the changes needed ( see Elaine’s email). Here is the relevant section in the IANA Naming Functions Contract: Section 2.c of Annex A of the Naming Function Agreement, where the SLAs are housed, states: (italics EP) “Either Party (BB Comment: ICANN or PTI) may initiate a change to the *services* performed by Contractor hereunder by delivering to the other a change request, in a form mutually acceptable to the Parties. Thereafter, the Parties will discuss the requested change in good faith and upon the Parties’ *mutual written agreement* that a change to the services performed by Contractor hereunder should be made, such change shall be evidenced in writing and* deemed to be incorporated into this Contract, without any need to amend the terms of this Contract*.” (See: https://www.icann.org/iana_pti_docs/151-iana-naming-function-contract-v-30s… ) Now quoting Sam Eisner: “With that, we see the work here is essentially to develop a subprocess for the CSC, ICANN and PTI to demonstrate that a proposed SLA change is supported by the customers and PTI, and that ICANN and PTI can then agree to modify the SLAs. The full contract modification process is not required in this instance. Some highlights for that subprocess could include (including areas already considered by the CSC to be part of it): - CSC and PTI agree that there is a need for a modification to the SLA (can be reflected in minutes, etc.) - CSC helps consult among/socialize with naming functions customers (Note: this is reflected as a possible public comment period in the process, but ICANN org would not require a comment period for this type of operational change; the consultation process could be designed in another way to reach the appropriate/impacted customers). - Once agreement is reached on the appropriate SLA, identify the proper threshold for documenting the customer support of change. (Note: because this is not a full contract amendment, the CSC could consider if the threshold counts based on the ccSNO and GNSO Council are still appropriate or if it should be tailored more to the customers) - PTI and ICANN Board approval would typically not be required for a change to the SLA, unless it imposed material financial impact to implement, or possibly if modifications to other contracts were needed to accommodate the SLA modification.” With the highlights Sam mentioned in mind, a CSC sub-group started to develop a set of procedures for the different types of changes, the Variable SLA Change Procedures, which were shared with the CSC RT and illustrated by Elaine. As each of the procedures headings states, the starting point is a change to the documented Service Levels. In terms of the CSC, they developed change processes that adequately address the need to remain transparent in all its dealings with PTI-IANA, while not exhausting the respective communities with the necessity to examine and affirmatively acknowledge trivial SLA changes. As the CSC members act as representatives of and remain accountable to their communities they feel that working with PTI-IANA to introduce SLA changes should be a core function of that representation. (EP Note: the ccNSO and RYSG can at anytime recall their appointees; if there is concern that a member is acting out of the interest of the direct customers, they can be replaced). The CSC also expressed that an addition / clarification is required to the current CSC charter. The required change should be made in the “Scope of Responsibilities” section. To avoid any confusion or conflation with responsibilities related to changes to the IFO services we recommend that this new responsibility appear amongst the earlier paragraphs of that section (and hence *replaces* the current language in the Review section) and include in the Scope of Responsibilities an additional subsection directly following the section on monitoring the performance of the IFO. Proposed language to include in the CSC Charter as part of the review team work: *The CSC will develop appropriate processes for engagement with registry operators and the community consultation by which Service Level changes can occur. These processes are commensurate with the nature of the Service Level change being proposed. Informing the registry operators shall always be required. Where the proposed changes are minor, for example a minor change to a target/threshold, a full community consultation would not be required. The processes for amendments of the service level may be updated from time to time, and will only become effective after publication of the process on the CSC webpage, and after informing the ccNSO Council and RySG, the direct customers.* Please let me know if you have any questions. Elaine

3 2