Hi Bart,

Hmm:  did I miss something:  I do not recall us coming to such a stark conclusion and am not sure how appropriate this is as a recommendation.  I  certainly would prefer to it to be at request, but (as my earlier comments on the document suggested) could see value in specifying an annual meeting as a minimum based around budgets and operational planning.

If we are recommending a number of meetings, we should explain why and we need to allow for requested meetings.

Thanks

Martin

From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Sent: 11 March 2018 15:38
To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; 'Elaine Pruis' <elainepruis@gmail.com>
Cc: CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] [Retitled] Slide Set

Hi Martin,

See inserted comment on slide 6

Other suggestions included in the updated slides

From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sunday 11 March 2018 at 15:09
To: 'Elaine Pruis' <elainepruis@gmail.com>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] [Retitled] Slide Set

Hi Bart and thanks for doing this.

I’m very happy with the slide set, but just a few minor suggestions:

• Slide 2:  “Does the Charter enable the CSC to fulfil…?”
• Slide 6:  I had not realised that we’d agreed to something as stark as requiring “at least 2 meetings per year between CSC and PTI Board.”  This seems to me to be over-prescriptive.

BB Comment. This is language as included in latest version: “the RT is recommending that the Charter include at least two meetings a year between the CSC and the PTI Board.”

• Slide 6:  “Frequency of CSC meetings determined by need over time”:  is it worth adding that this is an operational decision for the CSC?  Do we need to specify any safety-valve (how members might be able to request a call, for example)?

BB Comment. Added (operational decision)

• Slide 7:  missing bracket in “agreed procedures ( Remedial Action Procedures”
• Slide 8:  might it be worth adding some explanation to “Create synergies” like coordinating the scope of the reviews?
• Slide 9:  [not for the slides, but to try and position the schedule] does this timescale end after Panama?

BB Comment. Assuming the public comment start around 30 March, the public comment will take it to 11 May.

Assuming 4 weeks to update and finalize that will take until 8 June. Panama meeting is 25- 28 June.

That’s it from me

Thanks

Martin

From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Elaine Pruis
Sent: 11 March 2018 10:21
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Cc: CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: PLS READ: Version 6

Thanks Bart

Remedial Actin Procedures title should be Remedial Action Procedures

Elaine

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:

Donna, all,

Please find included draft deck

Please note you are also invited today at CSC meeting from 17.00-18.30.

Most likely that will be short meeting

Kind regards,

BArt

From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review@icann.org>
Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>
Date: Friday 9 March 2018 at 19:33
To: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org>
Subject: [CSC-Review] FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: PLS READ: Version 6

Bart

Is it possible for you to develop a deck of the key points contained in the attached so that this can be used for meetings with the RySG and ccNSO?

Thanks

Donna

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 5:07 PM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [CSC-Review] PLS READ: Version 6

Thanks Donna,

This all looks quite satisfactory to me.  I had a couple of additional comments and minor suggestions, which I have inserted in the clean copy, attached.

For the table in section 6, I note that we still have item 5 as well as item 6, which cover the same ground.  Under 14 right at the end of the proposed wording section I would suggest, “… at the request of either one or more members of the PTI Board or the CSC.”  The reasons are that I think in this case it is the PTI (but transferable to a new operator) and I think we are probably particularly interested in the views of the independent directors.

Number 20, “… by the members constituency (ie the RySG or the ccNSO).” Although I’m not really convinced we need to specify, so the wording in red (and the text it replaces) could be dropped!

I note that my comments on numbers 7 and 12 about needing to provide text (and in 18, 23 & 24 also need some response to comments.

Thanks

Martin

From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-Review
Sent: 07 March 2018 01:01
To: CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: [CSC-Review] PLS READ: Version 6

Hi All

Sorry this is taking so long. I’m not quite there yet, but if I could ask if folks could review the document up to Section 6. Proposed Changes to the CSC Charter that would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve attached a redline and a clean version (the clean version stops after the section on travel support).

Thanks

Donna

Donna Austin
Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions
Mobile: +1 310 890 9655
donna.austin@team.neustar / Website: home.neustar

Follow Neustar: LinkedIn / Twitter
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.

_______________________________________________
CSC-Review mailing list
CSC-Review@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review