Dear all,
Ac recording from yesterday’s call is below.
https://participate.icann.org/p1uabfaukl7/
Best,
Ria
From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>
Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 4:59 AM
To: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org>, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com>, Naela Sarras <naela.sarras@iana.org>
Cc: Amy Creamer <amy.creamer@icann.org>, "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org>
Subject: [CSC-Review] FW: Next call: Thursday, 01 March @ 16:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find included Martin’s comments on latest version of the RAP as forwarded by Elaine,
Kind regards,
Bart
From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Boyle via CSC-Review <CSC-review@icann.org>
Reply-To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>
Date: Wednesday 28 February 2018 at 22:50
To: 'Elaine Pruis' <elainepruis@gmail.com>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>
Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] Next call: Thursday, 01 March @ 16:00 UTC
I’m still struggling with this document! There still seems to be an assumption that the RAP kicks in because of a complaint that seems to show a systemic issue. Yet the charter identifies that the process is to allow the CSC to request correction of failings to meet the service levels and I would expect this to be the main reason for launching the RAP. The cumbersome wording proposed at the end of the first paragraph probably works, but I am a little concerned at the risk of limiting the action to where there is a “persistent performance issue, or an indication of a systemic problem.” The Charter does not apply these criteria, but simply says “
to undertake remedial action to address poor performance.” That might be a single serious service failure that has not been explained adequately – where, for example, PTI has not been able to explain how such a failure (or similar set of circumstances) might be prevented in the future.
If the second paragraph (proposed for deletion) was intended to meet my concern that there should be some discussion before launching the RAP, it rather misses my point: my concern was all about a possible risk of breakdown of communications between the PTI and CSC (which might justifiably be the reason for recourse to the RAP!) where CSC pushes to start a RAP, without seeking to understand whether there were mitigating circumstances or simple fixes that meant further action was not necessary. This is probably covered in I. a), although this in itself appears to be focussed on identifying whether a complaint is systemic, not on a failure to meet the service levels.
One final point: I get Allan’s point that this is a document for PTI. But wouldn’t we want any future operator to be (at least initially) bound to this process?
Best
Martin
From: CSC-Review [mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elaine Pruis
Sent: 28 February 2018 02:51
To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>
Cc: CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] Next call: Thursday, 01 March @ 16:00 UTC
HI,
Please find attached the most recent draft of the RAPs.
Elaine
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CSC Charter Review Team,
The next call is scheduled for Thursday, 01 March @ 16:00 UTC. A calendar invite was sent earlier today.
Please find the latest draft attached.
All the best,
Ria
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Ria Otanes | Secretariat Operations Coordinator
Email maria.otanes@icann.org | Cell +1 202 679 5185
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Washington, DC Office | EDT / UTC-5
_______________________________________________
CSC-Review mailing list
CSC-Review@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review
