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

Re: [CSC-Review] Final Report CSC Charter Review team
by Bart Boswinkel June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

In addition , please find included the standalone version of the charter. Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 19 June 2018 at 12:09 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> Cc: "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org>, Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces(a)icann.org> Subject: [CSC-Review] Final Report CSC Charter Review team Message to the ccNSO Council Dear Katrina Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. In addition, the report also recommends that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN’s CTO consider a request made by DENIC during the public comment period of our Initial Report to carry out a gap analysis of all IANA Naming Function related topics. Regards On behalf of the CSC Charter Review Team Bart Boswinkel

1 0

Final Report CSC Charter Review team
by Bart Boswinkel June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Message to the ccNSO Council Dear Katrina Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. In addition, the report also recommends that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN’s CTO consider a request made by DENIC during the public comment period of our Initial Report to carry out a gap analysis of all IANA Naming Function related topics. Regards On behalf of the CSC Charter Review Team Bart Boswinkel

1 0

Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] 18 June 2018: revised final report and charter
by Bart Boswinkel June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Donna, all, I will forward the emails and final report as suggested later today. However please note there is still a discrepancy between the text of section 4.3.11 and the text in the charter regarding the service level changes The text in 4.3.10 Any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This general requirement is not reflected in the proposed simplified process, not in the proposed charter. The text from the proposed charter ( Scope of responsibilities): 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. Please advise before I send off the final document. Kind regards, Bart From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Monday 18 June 2018 at 01:15 To: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com>, "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] 18 June 2018: revised final report and charter Hi All I’ve reviewed the Final Report and Amended Charter after receiving Martin’s comments, and I’ve accepted most if not all of the suggested changes. I’ve reworded the section on 5.3 requesting the Gap Analysis, noting that the RT did not have an opportunity to consider the comment but believes it is worthy of follow-up by ICANN’s CTO and are recommending that this be done by the ccNSO. I think there was some double-up in Annex A with a copy of the Amended Charter and a Comparison of the Original with the Amended Charter, so I’ve deleted the Amended Character that is provided in Section 6. And just left the comparison. In terms of what’s next, I propose the following emails be sent to the ccNSO and GNSO Council Chairs by Bart on behalf of the CSC Review Team: Message to the GNSO Council Dear Heather Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. Regards CSC Review Team Message to the ccNSO Council Dear Katrina Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. In addition, the report also recommends that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN’s CTO consider a request made by DENIC during the public comment period of our Initial Report to carry out a gap analysis of all IANA Naming Function related topics. Regards CSC Review Team Keith and I have submitted a motion to the GNSO Council to ratify the Amended Charter. Thanks everyone, almost there. Donna From: H M Boyle [mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:58 PM To: CSC-review(a)icann.org Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter It might have helped to say that my changes were to 4.3.4, 4.3.11 & 5.3 Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 17 Jun 2018, at 00:11, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Hi Bart, All, In response to Bart’s question below, I have no problems with deletion of the text. If ccNSO or GNSO do not agree the change, they can always object and (in the worst case) sack their nominees! >From a quick scan of the text, I have made some minor amendments and some comments in the attached: the inline amendments try to correct the English (as seen from the UK!) and comments suggest alternative words that I think might be clearer. Two additional comments: Can I suggest that the formatting amendments in Annex A are all accepted? Pages 32 & 33 appear to have unnecessary page breaks: supress? Hope this helps Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 15 June 2018 17:29 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; CSC-review(a)icann.org Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter Dear all, Please find included update version of the Final report and clean version Please note following: Section 4.3.10 Final; sentence: Should there be any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process, these must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This is a sentence that is causing confusion: Do you suggest that any change to the Service levels need to be approved by the ccNSO And GNSO? Issue and confusion: This is not aligned with the text of the proposed charter, and ultimately does not change anything to the mechanism to date only adds confusion (including confusion with staff). Suggested change: delete the sentence The DENIC note: Following Donna’s and Martin’s suggestion it is now in both in section 3 and section 5. Suggedtion is to include it only in Section 5 per discussion on the call. I have also changed the text slightly to clarify what is meant with the GAP. Proposed text 5.3 Potential Gap community coverage of all IANA-Naming Function related topics >From one contribution to the public comment period (DENIC), the RT recognises that although number of different bodies (SOs and ACs, CSC, RZERC) look at various and different aspects of the IANA Naming Functions some issues, which are not strictly operational but within PTI’s remit, are not within scope of any of the bodies identified. Examples that were mentioned are KSK rollover, the choice of technical DNSSEC parameters, "technical checks" applied by both the IFO and the RZM, as well as proposed changes to the authentication and authorization model for root zone changes). The contributor suggested to conduct a Gap-Analysis to identify those issues. While this comment is outside the scope of the Charter Review, the RT does believe that there would be value in conducting the gap analysis as suggested, and as such recommends that the ccNSO Council encourages ICANN’s CTO to respond to this suggestion. Also included is the comparison of the updated proposed charter and the original charter (only in clean version of the document) Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com> Subject: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter All I managed to get access to the Martin’s version of the document and I’ve made some changes. Two are different from what we agreed yesterday. Re the Council comment encouraging that the appointments taken into consideration the WS2 recommendations. I’ve stayed with the notion that we would not change the Charter, but I’ve suggested that in the event the WS2 recommendations are accepted, that the appointing organisations take the recommendations into account in their selection processes. Re the DENIC comment about a gap analysis I’ve suggested that the ccNSO should encourage ICANN’s CTO to respond to the suggestion. I don’t think there is a role in this case for the GNSO Council and it seems to sit better as an action item for the ccNSO. Martin, I think I agreed with all your comments. It would be great to get this wrapped up tomorrow. Thanks everyone Donna <Draft Final Report CSC Charter RT version 15 June 2018 version 3 Clean + MB.docx>

3 2

FW: Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 22
by Maria Otanes June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

To be on safe side, Included details to attend the call. Kind regards, Bart From: maria.otanes(a)icann.org When: 22:00 - 23:30 18 June 2018 Subject: [CSC-Review] Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 22 Location: Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/csc/ Adobe Connect has been restored and we will be using it for the next call. Please note, the next call is rescheduled to Monday, 18 June at 20:00 UTC. Link to Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/csc/ US/Canada: 1 800 550 6865 Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann_&d=…> Conference ID: 6294

1 0

18 June 2018: revised final report and charter
by Austin, Donna June 17, 2018

June 17, 2018

Hi All I’ve reviewed the Final Report and Amended Charter after receiving Martin’s comments, and I’ve accepted most if not all of the suggested changes. I’ve reworded the section on 5.3 requesting the Gap Analysis, noting that the RT did not have an opportunity to consider the comment but believes it is worthy of follow-up by ICANN’s CTO and are recommending that this be done by the ccNSO. I think there was some double-up in Annex A with a copy of the Amended Charter and a Comparison of the Original with the Amended Charter, so I’ve deleted the Amended Character that is provided in Section 6. And just left the comparison. In terms of what’s next, I propose the following emails be sent to the ccNSO and GNSO Council Chairs by Bart on behalf of the CSC Review Team: Message to the GNSO Council Dear Heather Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. Regards CSC Review Team Message to the ccNSO Council Dear Katrina Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter Review prepared by the CSC Charter Review Team, along with a standalone version of the Proposed Amended CSC Charter. In accordance with the CSC Charter and the ICANN bylaws, any recommended changes to the CSC Charter as a result of the CSC Charter review are to be ratified by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils. Therefore the CSC Review Team seeks consideration of the Proposed Amended Charter by the GNSO Council with a view to having the recommended changes ratified. We also call your attention to a recommendation in the Final Report requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap. We understand that some progress has been made in this regard and we thank the Council for their prompt attention to this matter. In addition, the report also recommends that the ccNSO Council request that the ICANN’s CTO consider a request made by DENIC during the public comment period of our Initial Report to carry out a gap analysis of all IANA Naming Function related topics. Regards CSC Review Team Keith and I have submitted a motion to the GNSO Council to ratify the Amended Charter. Thanks everyone, almost there. Donna From: H M Boyle [mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:58 PM To: CSC-review(a)icann.org Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter It might have helped to say that my changes were to 4.3.4, 4.3.11 & 5.3 Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 17 Jun 2018, at 00:11, Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford(a)ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> wrote: Hi Bart, All, In response to Bart’s question below, I have no problems with deletion of the text. If ccNSO or GNSO do not agree the change, they can always object and (in the worst case) sack their nominees! From a quick scan of the text, I have made some minor amendments and some comments in the attached: the inline amendments try to correct the English (as seen from the UK!) and comments suggest alternative words that I think might be clearer. Two additional comments: 1. Can I suggest that the formatting amendments in Annex A are all accepted? 2. Pages 32 & 33 appear to have unnecessary page breaks: supress? Hope this helps Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 15 June 2018 17:29 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; CSC-review(a)icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com<mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com>> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter Dear all, Please find included update version of the Final report and clean version Please note following: Section 4.3.10 Final; sentence: Should there be any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process, these must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This is a sentence that is causing confusion: Do you suggest that any change to the Service levels need to be approved by the ccNSO And GNSO? Issue and confusion: This is not aligned with the text of the proposed charter, and ultimately does not change anything to the mechanism to date only adds confusion (including confusion with staff). Suggested change: delete the sentence The DENIC note: Following Donna’s and Martin’s suggestion it is now in both in section 3 and section 5. Suggedtion is to include it only in Section 5 per discussion on the call. I have also changed the text slightly to clarify what is meant with the GAP. Proposed text 5.3 Potential Gap community coverage of all IANA-Naming Function related topics From one contribution to the public comment period (DENIC), the RT recognises that although number of different bodies (SOs and ACs, CSC, RZERC) look at various and different aspects of the IANA Naming Functions some issues, which are not strictly operational but within PTI’s remit, are not within scope of any of the bodies identified. Examples that were mentioned are KSK rollover, the choice of technical DNSSEC parameters, "technical checks" applied by both the IFO and the RZM, as well as proposed changes to the authentication and authorization model for root zone changes). The contributor suggested to conduct a Gap-Analysis to identify those issues. While this comment is outside the scope of the Charter Review, the RT does believe that there would be value in conducting the gap analysis as suggested, and as such recommends that the ccNSO Council encourages ICANN’s CTO to respond to this suggestion. Also included is the comparison of the updated proposed charter and the original charter (only in clean version of the document) Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review(a)icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review(a)icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review(a)icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com<mailto:hm.boyle@icloud.com>> Subject: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter All I managed to get access to the Martin’s version of the document and I’ve made some changes. Two are different from what we agreed yesterday. Re the Council comment encouraging that the appointments taken into consideration the WS2 recommendations. I’ve stayed with the notion that we would not change the Charter, but I’ve suggested that in the event the WS2 recommendations are accepted, that the appointing organisations take the recommendations into account in their selection processes. Re the DENIC comment about a gap analysis I’ve suggested that the ccNSO should encourage ICANN’s CTO to respond to the suggestion. I don’t think there is a role in this case for the GNSO Council and it seems to sit better as an action item for the ccNSO. Martin, I think I agreed with all your comments. It would be great to get this wrapped up tomorrow. Thanks everyone Donna <Draft Final Report CSC Charter RT version 15 June 2018 version 3 Clean + MB.docx>

1 0

FW: Motion to approve the Customer Standing Committee Amended Charter
by Austin, Donna June 17, 2018

June 17, 2018

All As an FYI, in order to meet the motion deadline for the next GNSO Council meeting, I have submitted the attached motion for consideration by Council. It will be important to have the Final Report signed off on Monday so that we can provide it to both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils and the RySG. Thanks to Martin for his latest comments. I am also in the process of reviewing and hope to have this finalized tomorrow. Thanks Donna From: Austin, Donna Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 6:38 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Motion to approve the Customer Standing Committee Amended Charter Dear Councilors Please find attached a motion for consideration by the Council on 27 June 2018, to approve the Customer Standing Committee Amended Charter. I expect that the Final Report of the Customer Standing Committee Charter Review, which includes the Amended Charter, will be provided to the Council on Monday or Tuesday of next week. 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

Re: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter
by Bart Boswinkel June 16, 2018

June 16, 2018

Dear all, Please find included update version of the Final report and clean version Please note following: Section 4.3.10 Final; sentence: Should there be any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process, these must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. This is a sentence that is causing confusion: Do you suggest that any change to the Service levels need to be approved by the ccNSO And GNSO? Issue and confusion: This is not aligned with the text of the proposed charter, and ultimately does not change anything to the mechanism to date only adds confusion (including confusion with staff). Suggested change: delete the sentence The DENIC note: Following Donna’s and Martin’s suggestion it is now in both in section 3 and section 5. Suggedtion is to include it only in Section 5 per discussion on the call. I have also changed the text slightly to clarify what is meant with the GAP. Proposed text 5.3 Potential Gap community coverage of all IANA-Naming Function related topics >From one contribution to the public comment period (DENIC), the RT recognises that although number of different bodies (SOs and ACs, CSC, RZERC) look at various and different aspects of the IANA Naming Functions some issues, which are not strictly operational but within PTI’s remit, are not within scope of any of the bodies identified. Examples that were mentioned are KSK rollover, the choice of technical DNSSEC parameters, "technical checks" applied by both the IFO and the RZM, as well as proposed changes to the authentication and authorization model for root zone changes). The contributor suggested to conduct a Gap-Analysis to identify those issues. While this comment is outside the scope of the Charter Review, the RT does believe that there would be value in conducting the gap analysis as suggested, and as such recommends that the ccNSO Council encourages ICANN’s CTO to respond to this suggestion. Also included is the comparison of the updated proposed charter and the original charter (only in clean version of the document) Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle(a)icloud.com> Subject: [CSC-Review] 14 June 2018: revised final report and charter All I managed to get access to the Martin’s version of the document and I’ve made some changes. Two are different from what we agreed yesterday. Re the Council comment encouraging that the appointments taken into consideration the WS2 recommendations. I’ve stayed with the notion that we would not change the Charter, but I’ve suggested that in the event the WS2 recommendations are accepted, that the appointing organisations take the recommendations into account in their selection processes. Re the DENIC comment about a gap analysis I’ve suggested that the ccNSO should encourage ICANN’s CTO to respond to the suggestion. I don’t think there is a role in this case for the GNSO Council and it seems to sit better as an action item for the ccNSO. Martin, I think I agreed with all your comments. It would be great to get this wrapped up tomorrow. Thanks everyone Donna

2 1

Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] RE: CSC Charter Review Team Call, 12 June @16:00 UTC
by Maria Otanes June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Hi Donna, The document you attached is blank. Could you please resend? Thanks, Ria From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:50 AM To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [CSC-Review] CSC Charter Review Team Call, 12 June @16:00 UTC All Some suggested changes to Bart’s draft. Donna From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:24 AM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>; CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] CSC Charter Review Team Call, 12 June @16:00 UTC Diopnna, all , Please find included updated version ( version 2 ) draft Final Report. Based on discussions previous call the changes have bene updated, and some added. Also included in the text (section 6) updated version ( redline) of the amended charter, Kind regards, Bart From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Tuesday 12 June 2018 at 02:03 To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, "CSC-review(a)icann.org" <CSC-review(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] CSC Charter Review Team Call, 12 June @16:00 UTC Thanks Maria Have we been provided with the Final Report? From: CSC-Review [mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Otanes Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:19 AM To: CSC-review(a)icann.org Subject: [CSC-Review] CSC Charter Review Team Call, 12 June @16:00 UTC Dear CSC Charter Review Team, Attached, please find the agenda for the CSC Charter Review Team call scheduled for tomorrow, 12 June at 16:00 UTC. Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/csc/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Ria _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Ria Otanes | Secretariat Operations Coordinator Email maria.otanes(a)icann.org | Cell +1 202 679 5185 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Washington, DC Office | EDT / UTC-4

4 4

14 June 2018: revised final report and charter
by Austin, Donna June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

All I managed to get access to the Martin’s version of the document and I’ve made some changes. Two are different from what we agreed yesterday. Re the Council comment encouraging that the appointments taken into consideration the WS2 recommendations. I’ve stayed with the notion that we would not change the Charter, but I’ve suggested that in the event the WS2 recommendations are accepted, that the appointing organisations take the recommendations into account in their selection processes. Re the DENIC comment about a gap analysis I’ve suggested that the ccNSO should encourage ICANN’s CTO to respond to the suggestion. I don’t think there is a role in this case for the GNSO Council and it seems to sit better as an action item for the ccNSO. Martin, I think I agreed with all your comments. It would be great to get this wrapped up tomorrow. Thanks everyone Donna

1 0

FW: Check amended charter CSC for consistency with Bylaw and IANA Naming Function Contract Language
by Bart Boswinkel June 14, 2018

June 14, 2018

Dear all, As said yesterday, Sam Eisner would look at the proposed charter language included in the Initial Report. Included her findings, Kind regards, Bart From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 6 June 2018 at 23:51 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Check amended charter CSC for consistency with Bylaw and IANA Naming Function Contract Language Hi - I reviewed the Charter and it did not raise any concerns for me with consistency with the ICANN Bylaws. I will note two items for potential clean up: (1) there is a reference to “IANA” as a standalone entity, but I recommend that be the IANA Functions Operator. (2) there is potential duplication between two sections where attendance requirement are now specified, however they are not inconsistent, so it’s not a big deal. On a terminology issue, I know during the transition we said ICANN is the IFO, and then it contracts with PTI. The initial language of the CSC Charter can be read to say that PTI is the IFO, not the company contracted to perform the IANA functions. The further edits that the Charter review team made are consistent with that use of PTI as the IFO. TRANG, are we OK with leaving it, or should we recommend refinement to the terms? Sam — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:33 AM To: Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Check amended charter CSC for consistency with Bylaw and IANA Naming Function Contract Language Hi Sam., Hope all is well. The public comment period on Interim Report CSC charter review has just closed ( 1 June 2018). This evening ( Wednesday 6 June) the RT is having a call to discuss the comments received and impact on the charter and report. I am now drafting final report and updating the proposed charter accordingly. Could you be so kind to run a consistency check over the amended charter, by the end of this week, early next week? Thank you and kind regards, Bart From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 20 April 2018 at 20:40 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Check amended charter CSC for consistency with Bylaw and IANA Naming Function Contract Language Thanks Bart. Will do. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 1:02 PM To: Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> Subject: Check amended charter CSC for consistency with Bylaw and IANA Naming Function Contract Language Hi Sam, Included the Initial Report of the CSC Charter review team, which was just published for public comment. It is my understanding that Donna reached out to you to ask if you could check the consistency of the proposed charter against the relevant language in Article 17 of the Bylaws and IANA Naming Function Contract. The Initial report includes the amended charter (section 6) and a comparison of the proposed and current charter). For example the RT ( and CSC itself) is struggling with when to use PTI and when the IANA Function Operator. Similarly, what to use Service Level, Service Level requirements or SLA. The Review Team will after the Public Comment update the Report including and if needed the charter will be updated. If you could provide your input, if any, directly to the Review Team or as part of the public comment they will adjust the charter. Thank you and kind regards, Bart

2 1