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@icann.org Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; CSC-review@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@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@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 15 June 2018 17:29 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@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@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Cc: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@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>