Elaine
This is the most recent version of the Amended Charter.
I’ll go back and check the report.
Thanks
Donna
From: Elaine Pruis [mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:44 PM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>
Cc: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [EXTERNAL] Review of the Report
Thank you Donna
This report looks fantastic!
There's just one thing....
This line in the Report: 4.3.10 "Should there be any proposed changes to service levels through the simplified process, these
must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO."
should be removed as it is no longer correct (unless I'm very confused).
As you stated in your April 2 email,
The text from 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.” IS TO BE REMOVED. Is that correct?
The proposed new language in the charter:
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.
Bart, is there an updated version of the charter that reflects this language, the most recent one I have is from 3/26 which doesn't reflect the changes above.
Elaine
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review <csc-review@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Martin
All, I think the attached is our final report for posting.
From: Martin Boyle [mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:43 AM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [EXTERNAL] Review of the Report
Comments on comments and a few corrections in one of the paragraphs as spaces had disappeared etc.
From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via CSC-Review
Sent: 02 April 2018 23:57
To: H M Boyle <hm.boyle@icloud.com>; csc-review@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [EXTERNAL] Review of the Report
Hi Martin
Thanks for your review. I’ve accepted most of your comments.
On the 20180402 version, which is basically the clean version, I’ve responded to some of your questions.
Elaine, can you please review Sections 4.3.10 and 4.3.11 to make sure that the language works.
Thank you
Donna
From: CSC-Review [mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle via CSC-Review
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 3:54 AM
To: CSC-review@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Review of the Report
Hi All,
On the call on Monday, I promised to provide some tidying up on the draft report (and Keith would then use this document as he reviewed the Charter amendments section).
I have tried to eliminate inconsistencies (I think there are still some in the use of PTI and IFO), simplify the language and break the text into shorter, more manageable paragraphs. I’ve also tried to cut out some of the repetition (I hope that I haven’t over-cut) and remove redundant words.
The result is attached: it is based on the v7 amended by Donna in her e-mail last Friday with her comments all accepted.
I’m not precious about the exact wording, but I hope that I have made the text a little more readable!
Best
Martin
_______________________________________________
CSC-Review mailing list
CSC-Review@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review