Dear all, I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks. In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself: 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. May I suggest to change the current text: The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC. To: The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings. Please advise if you want to change the text. Kind regards, Bart From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Hi all, I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are: There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph requires there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed That’s it from me Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 09 April 2018 12:08 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Donna, All, Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below). In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community. As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting. Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC). Kind regards, Bart Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com] http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] -- From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report Hi Bart This looks great, thank you. I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else. Executive Summary Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6 Under 4.3.2 Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ... Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The Proposed Amended Charter Scope of Responsibilities Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP). And that’s all I have. I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible. Thanks again Bart Donna Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication. Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections. Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section: The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities. Kind regards, Bart <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf> <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review

Hello I agree with Donna, the monthly meeting should remain a requirement in the charter. There hasn't been a call from the CSC members to remove the requirement. The initial suggestion came from Alan who was thinking it would be nice to have the option to NOT meet if there was nothing to discuss. However, if we don't have anything to discuss, it can just be a very short meeting. I don't think any text needs to be changed. If there is an issue with the report language not matching the charter language, I'd recommend just removing this part from the report: "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." I hope that helps. Elaine On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review < csc-review@icann.org> wrote:

Bart and Martin

I don’t agree on number 7 and I believe Martin and I have had a different opinion of this all along, so it might be helpful to get Elaine’s opinion on this.

In my mind, the monthly meeting requirement MUST remain in the Charter. That is clear in 4.3.8 “The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future;…”

I understand that it goes on the say that “; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.”

So, perhaps what we need is a process that addresses this, but I do not want to relax this requirement—it’s way too early. The CSC has one important job: monitor the performance of IANA. I do not want that monitoring to fall to an email list, where there is a tendency just to agree because it’s easy or the Chair has to continually follow up with the members and liaisons to get agreement on an issue. I’m also concerned that you lose the opportunity to discuss an issue that might not otherwise have come up, except for a comment made during a call. There’s also a risk that the reporting becomes the responsibility of staff assisting the CSC. The monthly meeting requirement *MUST* stay in place at least through the next iteration of the CSC. We have acknowledged that the current CSC is a tremendous group. We may not be so lucking with the next group. Regular meetings are important to building rapport within a group, and given that this is a small focused group, I believe it is no great burden to continue with this requirement. Given what’s at stake I think it would be a real mistake on our part to make a recommendation to relax the requirement after only 18 months of the CSC’s existence.

In light of my arguments above, maybe we need to add to the

*4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement*

The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently.

The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.

The RT agrees with the CSC that the monthly meeting requirement remain in the Charter and has concerns about this requirement being relaxed in the future. Given the important role of the CSC and potential consequences of poor performance, the RT believes that it is important that the CSC actively discuss the performance reports on a monthly basis. We also recognize that the inaugural CSC is an extremely competent and professional group that has taken the role seriously. This CSC has also developed a good rapport within the group that could be attributed to the regular meeting of the group. It takes time to build a good group dynamic and given some members of the CSC may be stepping down in October 2018, it will be necessary to take time to bring newcomers into the group.

___

Thanks

Donna

*From:* Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM *To:* Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> *Cc:* CSC-review@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Dear all,

I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks.

In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself:

*4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement*

The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently.

The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.

May I suggest to change the current text:

*The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC.*

To:

*The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings.*

Please advise if you want to change the text.

Kind regards,

Bart

*From: *Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> *Date: *Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "'Austin, Donna'" < Donna.Austin@team.neustar> *Cc: *"CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Hi all,

I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are:

1. There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks.

2. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report

3. Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed

4. 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed

5. Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed

6. Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed

7. Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph *requires* there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss.

8. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed

That’s it from me

Martin

*From:* CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Bart Boswinkel *Sent:* 09 April 2018 12:08 *To:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> *Cc:* CSC-review@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Donna, All,

Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below).

In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community.

As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting.

Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC).

Kind regards,

Bart

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...>

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook. com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...>

http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFa...> --

*From: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> *Date: *Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Cc: *"CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report

Hi Bart

This looks great, thank you.

I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else.

Executive Summary

Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6

Under 4.3.2

Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ...

Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The

Proposed Amended Charter

Scope of Responsibilities

Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP).

And that’s all I have.

I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible.

Thanks again Bart

Donna

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication.

Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections.

Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section:

The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service *levels*. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO*.*

I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities.

Kind regards,

Bart

<Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf>

<Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx>

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

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

I’m just pointing out the consequences of our wording, which doesn’t really enable the sentiments of the report. That is why I made it as a “just sayin’” comment. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:16, Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello I agree with Donna, the monthly meeting should remain a requirement in the charter. There hasn't been a call from the CSC members to remove the requirement. The initial suggestion came from Alan who was thinking it would be nice to have the option to NOT meet if there was nothing to discuss. However, if we don't have anything to discuss, it can just be a very short meeting. I don't think any text needs to be changed. If there is an issue with the report language not matching the charter language, I'd recommend just removing this part from the report: "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." I hope that helps. Elaine

...

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review <csc-review@icann.org> wrote: Bart and Martin

I don’t agree on number 7 and I believe Martin and I have had a different opinion of this all along, so it might be helpful to get Elaine’s opinion on this.

In my mind, the monthly meeting requirement MUST remain in the Charter. That is clear in 4.3.8 “The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future;…”

I understand that it goes on the say that “; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.”

So, perhaps what we need is a process that addresses this, but I do not want to relax this requirement—it’s way too early. The CSC has one important job: monitor the performance of IANA. I do not want that monitoring to fall to an email list, where there is a tendency just to agree because it’s easy or the Chair has to continually follow up with the members and liaisons to get agreement on an issue. I’m also concerned that you lose the opportunity to discuss an issue that might not otherwise have come up, except for a comment made during a call. There’s also a risk that the reporting becomes the responsibility of staff assisting the CSC. The monthly meeting requirement MUST stay in place at least through the next iteration of the CSC. We have acknowledged that the current CSC is a tremendous group. We may not be so lucking with the next group. Regular meetings are important to building rapport within a group, and given that this is a small focused group, I believe it is no great burden to continue with this requirement. Given what’s at stake I think it would be a real mistake on our part to make a recommendation to relax the requirement after only 18 months of the CSC’s existence.

In light of my arguments above, maybe we need to add to the

4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement

The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently.

The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.

The RT agrees with the CSC that the monthly meeting requirement remain in the Charter and has concerns about this requirement being relaxed in the future. Given the important role of the CSC and potential consequences of poor performance, the RT believes that it is important that the CSC actively discuss the performance reports on a monthly basis. We also recognize that the inaugural CSC is an extremely competent and professional group that has taken the role seriously. This CSC has also developed a good rapport within the group that could be attributed to the regular meeting of the group. It takes time to build a good group dynamic and given some members of the CSC may be stepping down in October 2018, it will be necessary to take time to bring newcomers into the group.

___

Thanks

Donna

From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Dear all,

I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks.

In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself:

4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement

The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently.

The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.

May I suggest to change the current text:

The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC.

To: The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings.

Please advise if you want to change the text.

Kind regards,

Bart

From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Hi all,

I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are:

1. There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks.

2. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report

3. Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed

4. 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed

5. Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed

6. Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed

7. Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph requires there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss.

8. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed

That’s it from me

Martin

From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 09 April 2018 12:08 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report

Donna, All,

Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below).

In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community.

As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting.

Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC).

Kind regards,

Bart

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]

http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] --

From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report

Hi Bart

This looks great, thank you.

I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else.

Executive Summary

Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6

Under 4.3.2

Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ...

Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The

Proposed Amended Charter

Scope of Responsibilities

Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP).

And that’s all I have.

I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible.

Thanks again Bart

Donna

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication.

Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections.

Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section:

The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities.

Kind regards,

Bart

<Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf>

<Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx>

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

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

All, I agree that the slated wording is pretty meaningless as it does not translate into charter change and therefore would need a further charter change in the future. (And responding to the earlier comment from Donna about our different opinions, my feeling is that, now that the CSC has shown itself as a mature and effective organisation, the Charter should enable the CSC to decide how best to pursue its mission. I accept that I have lost this argument: there is no support for change from the review team.) However, if you read the full wording of section 4.3.8, we say that we agree with the idea, but that we do not support the logical conclusion (without explaining why) and we fail to say how we would see the response to the first paragraph. This feels a bit sloppy to me and as such I would prefer to see the second paragraph rewritten (and spelling out the consequences clearly to avoid any doubt). So I would suggest the following (and I also take this opportunity to correct a grammatical error in the first sentence), with changed text marked in red, which recognise that this is an issue for a future review: The CSC recommends that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place. While we recognise that, as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and when the performance of the PTI does not give any causes for concern, it may be appropriate to reconsider this requirement in the future. Any changes will need to be implemented through a formal charter review process, supported by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils. [Or do I mean RySG and ccNSO Council? I don’t want to mess with internal GNSO protocol!] Hope that this helps, Martin From: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Sent: 09 April 2018 21:55 To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; CSC-review@icann.org Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Thanks Martin, and sorry if I’ve misunderstood. Are you happy to move forward as recommended by Elaine? Remove the "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." from the report and keep the requirement to meet at least once a month in the charter. From: Martin Boyle [mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:52 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com <mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com> > Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> >; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> >; CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report I’m just pointing out the consequences of our wording, which doesn’t really enable the sentiments of the report. That is why I made it as a “just sayin’” comment. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:16, Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com <mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com> > wrote: Hello I agree with Donna, the monthly meeting should remain a requirement in the charter. There hasn't been a call from the CSC members to remove the requirement. The initial suggestion came from Alan who was thinking it would be nice to have the option to NOT meet if there was nothing to discuss. However, if we don't have anything to discuss, it can just be a very short meeting. I don't think any text needs to be changed. If there is an issue with the report language not matching the charter language, I'd recommend just removing this part from the report: "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." I hope that helps. Elaine On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review <csc-review@icann.org <mailto:csc-review@icann.org> > wrote: Bart and Martin I don’t agree on number 7 and I believe Martin and I have had a different opinion of this all along, so it might be helpful to get Elaine’s opinion on this. In my mind, the monthly meeting requirement MUST remain in the Charter. That is clear in 4.3.8 “The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future;…” I understand that it goes on the say that “; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.” So, perhaps what we need is a process that addresses this, but I do not want to relax this requirement—it’s way too early. The CSC has one important job: monitor the performance of IANA. I do not want that monitoring to fall to an email list, where there is a tendency just to agree because it’s easy or the Chair has to continually follow up with the members and liaisons to get agreement on an issue. I’m also concerned that you lose the opportunity to discuss an issue that might not otherwise have come up, except for a comment made during a call. There’s also a risk that the reporting becomes the responsibility of staff assisting the CSC. The monthly meeting requirement MUST stay in place at least through the next iteration of the CSC. We have acknowledged that the current CSC is a tremendous group. We may not be so lucking with the next group. Regular meetings are important to building rapport within a group, and given that this is a small focused group, I believe it is no great burden to continue with this requirement. Given what’s at stake I think it would be a real mistake on our part to make a recommendation to relax the requirement after only 18 months of the CSC’s existence. In light of my arguments above, maybe we need to add to the 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. The RT agrees with the CSC that the monthly meeting requirement remain in the Charter and has concerns about this requirement being relaxed in the future. Given the important role of the CSC and potential consequences of poor performance, the RT believes that it is important that the CSC actively discuss the performance reports on a monthly basis. We also recognize that the inaugural CSC is an extremely competent and professional group that has taken the role seriously. This CSC has also developed a good rapport within the group that could be attributed to the regular meeting of the group. It takes time to build a good group dynamic and given some members of the CSC may be stepping down in October 2018, it will be necessary to take time to bring newcomers into the group. ___ Thanks Donna From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> ] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com <mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> >; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> > Cc: CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Dear all, I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks. In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself: 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. May I suggest to change the current text: The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC. To: The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings. Please advise if you want to change the text. Kind regards, Bart From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com <mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com> > Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> >, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> > Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> " <CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Hi all, I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are: 1. There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks. 2. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report 3. Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed 4. 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed 5. Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed 6. Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed 7. Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph requires there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss. 8. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed That’s it from me Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org <mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 09 April 2018 12:08 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> > Cc: CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Donna, All, Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below). In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community. As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting. Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC). Kind regards, Bart Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwM...> https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com] Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_...> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com] http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFa...> -- From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> > Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> > Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> " <CSC-review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report Hi Bart This looks great, thank you. I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else. Executive Summary Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6 Under 4.3.2 Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ... Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The Proposed Amended Charter Scope of Responsibilities Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP). And that’s all I have. I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible. Thanks again Bart Donna Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication. Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections. Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section: The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities. Kind regards, Bart <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf> <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list <mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> CSC-Review@icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org <mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

Hi Martin Thanks again for your diligence and persistence. I think your language is better and more appropriate for the reasons you have stated. I know this is taking longer than we expected, so I sincerely appreciate your continued efforts in keeping us focused on providing a good product. Donna Sent from my iPhone On Apr 10, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: All, I’ll wait until tomorrow for finalization of the last bit of text. FYI: The intended public comment period will run from 11 APRIL until FRIDAY 1 JUNE 2018 ( a little bit over 40 days) As I do not expect a lot of comments, I suggest that staff will prep the summary within a week (by 8 June) The RT will then, based on comments adjust the report and have it ready by 15 April and submit it to the respective Councils and ready for adoption. Kind regards, Bart From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Date: Tuesday 10 April 2018 at 11:08 To: "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>, 'Elaine Pruis' <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report All, I agree that the slated wording is pretty meaningless as it does not translate into charter change and therefore would need a further charter change in the future. (And responding to the earlier comment from Donna about our different opinions, my feeling is that, now that the CSC has shown itself as a mature and effective organisation, the Charter should enable the CSC to decide how best to pursue its mission. I accept that I have lost this argument: there is no support for change from the review team.) However, if you read the full wording of section 4.3.8, we say that we agree with the idea, but that we do not support the logical conclusion (without explaining why) and we fail to say how we would see the response to the first paragraph. This feels a bit sloppy to me and as such I would prefer to see the second paragraph rewritten (and spelling out the consequences clearly to avoid any doubt). So I would suggest the following (and I also take this opportunity to correct a grammatical error in the first sentence), with changed text marked in red, which recognise that this is an issue for a future review: The CSC recommends that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place. While we recognise that, as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and when the performance of the PTI does not give any causes for concern, it may be appropriate to reconsider this requirement in the future. Any changes will need to be implemented through a formal charter review process, supported by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils. [Or do I mean RySG and ccNSO Council? I don’t want to mess with internal GNSO protocol!] Hope that this helps, Martin From: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Sent: 09 April 2018 21:55 To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>>; Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Thanks Martin, and sorry if I’ve misunderstood. Are you happy to move forward as recommended by Elaine? Remove the "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." from the report and keep the requirement to meet at least once a month in the charter. From: Martin Boyle [mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:52 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report I’m just pointing out the consequences of our wording, which doesn’t really enable the sentiments of the report. That is why I made it as a “just sayin’” comment. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:16, Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello I agree with Donna, the monthly meeting should remain a requirement in the charter. There hasn't been a call from the CSC members to remove the requirement. The initial suggestion came from Alan who was thinking it would be nice to have the option to NOT meet if there was nothing to discuss. However, if we don't have anything to discuss, it can just be a very short meeting. I don't think any text needs to be changed. If there is an issue with the report language not matching the charter language, I'd recommend just removing this part from the report: "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." I hope that helps. Elaine On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review <csc-review@icann.org<mailto:csc-review@icann.org>> wrote: Bart and Martin I don’t agree on number 7 and I believe Martin and I have had a different opinion of this all along, so it might be helpful to get Elaine’s opinion on this. In my mind, the monthly meeting requirement MUST remain in the Charter. That is clear in 4.3.8 “The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future;…” I understand that it goes on the say that “; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.” So, perhaps what we need is a process that addresses this, but I do not want to relax this requirement—it’s way too early. The CSC has one important job: monitor the performance of IANA. I do not want that monitoring to fall to an email list, where there is a tendency just to agree because it’s easy or the Chair has to continually follow up with the members and liaisons to get agreement on an issue. I’m also concerned that you lose the opportunity to discuss an issue that might not otherwise have come up, except for a comment made during a call. There’s also a risk that the reporting becomes the responsibility of staff assisting the CSC. The monthly meeting requirement MUST stay in place at least through the next iteration of the CSC. We have acknowledged that the current CSC is a tremendous group. We may not be so lucking with the next group. Regular meetings are important to building rapport within a group, and given that this is a small focused group, I believe it is no great burden to continue with this requirement. Given what’s at stake I think it would be a real mistake on our part to make a recommendation to relax the requirement after only 18 months of the CSC’s existence. In light of my arguments above, maybe we need to add to the 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. The RT agrees with the CSC that the monthly meeting requirement remain in the Charter and has concerns about this requirement being relaxed in the future. Given the important role of the CSC and potential consequences of poor performance, the RT believes that it is important that the CSC actively discuss the performance reports on a monthly basis. We also recognize that the inaugural CSC is an extremely competent and professional group that has taken the role seriously. This CSC has also developed a good rapport within the group that could be attributed to the regular meeting of the group. It takes time to build a good group dynamic and given some members of the CSC may be stepping down in October 2018, it will be necessary to take time to bring newcomers into the group. ___ Thanks Donna From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Dear all, I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks. In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself: 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. May I suggest to change the current text: The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC. To: The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings. Please advise if you want to change the text. Kind regards, Bart From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Hi all, I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are: 1. There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks. 2. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report 3. Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed 4. 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed 5. Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed 6. Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed 7. Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph requires there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss. 8. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed That’s it from me Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 09 April 2018 12:08 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Donna, All, Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below). In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community. As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting. Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC). Kind regards, Bart Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=xMT8iKXR6QgR3yj0FpWxkj76GXxesKjois4q0plUnJQ&e=> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=7e-EfbotrKWQ7HCezPpI7Lp5IfFGHeImpZ6TV5yIlAc&e=> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=NQgb3u3bXd55DkqyaUIaG8CTRr-F3jVFpF8i5H8_7hw&e=> -- From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report Hi Bart This looks great, thank you. I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else. Executive Summary Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6 Under 4.3.2 Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ... Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The Proposed Amended Charter Scope of Responsibilities Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP). And that’s all I have. I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible. Thanks again Bart Donna Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication. Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections. Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section: The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities. Kind regards, Bart <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf> <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=FVHNfMMP3AUnXKwxDzLtY6uDFrUdpG1oNfcYjzD9gZU&s=n8TdLaCyCO5DLqaCAxbG4LTJTi_qyEO4WMQIvxna064&e=> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=FVHNfMMP3AUnXKwxDzLtY6uDFrUdpG1oNfcYjzD9gZU&s=n8TdLaCyCO5DLqaCAxbG4LTJTi_qyEO4WMQIvxna064&e=>

Not sure my email made the list, so resending just in case. From: Austin, Donna Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:55 PM To: 'Martin Boyle' <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>; Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>; CSC-review@icann.org Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Thanks Martin, and sorry if I’ve misunderstood. Are you happy to move forward as recommended by Elaine? Remove the "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." from the report and keep the requirement to meet at least once a month in the charter. From: Martin Boyle [mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:52 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>; CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report I’m just pointing out the consequences of our wording, which doesn’t really enable the sentiments of the report. That is why I made it as a “just sayin’” comment. Martin Boyle Sent from my iPhone On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:16, Elaine Pruis <elainepruis@gmail.com<mailto:elainepruis@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello I agree with Donna, the monthly meeting should remain a requirement in the charter. There hasn't been a call from the CSC members to remove the requirement. The initial suggestion came from Alan who was thinking it would be nice to have the option to NOT meet if there was nothing to discuss. However, if we don't have anything to discuss, it can just be a very short meeting. I don't think any text needs to be changed. If there is an issue with the report language not matching the charter language, I'd recommend just removing this part from the report: "however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting." I hope that helps. Elaine On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Austin, Donna via CSC-Review <csc-review@icann.org<mailto:csc-review@icann.org>> wrote: Bart and Martin I don’t agree on number 7 and I believe Martin and I have had a different opinion of this all along, so it might be helpful to get Elaine’s opinion on this. In my mind, the monthly meeting requirement MUST remain in the Charter. That is clear in 4.3.8 “The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future;…” I understand that it goes on the say that “; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting.” So, perhaps what we need is a process that addresses this, but I do not want to relax this requirement—it’s way too early. The CSC has one important job: monitor the performance of IANA. I do not want that monitoring to fall to an email list, where there is a tendency just to agree because it’s easy or the Chair has to continually follow up with the members and liaisons to get agreement on an issue. I’m also concerned that you lose the opportunity to discuss an issue that might not otherwise have come up, except for a comment made during a call. There’s also a risk that the reporting becomes the responsibility of staff assisting the CSC. The monthly meeting requirement MUST stay in place at least through the next iteration of the CSC. We have acknowledged that the current CSC is a tremendous group. We may not be so lucking with the next group. Regular meetings are important to building rapport within a group, and given that this is a small focused group, I believe it is no great burden to continue with this requirement. Given what’s at stake I think it would be a real mistake on our part to make a recommendation to relax the requirement after only 18 months of the CSC’s existence. In light of my arguments above, maybe we need to add to the 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. The RT agrees with the CSC that the monthly meeting requirement remain in the Charter and has concerns about this requirement being relaxed in the future. Given the important role of the CSC and potential consequences of poor performance, the RT believes that it is important that the CSC actively discuss the performance reports on a monthly basis. We also recognize that the inaugural CSC is an extremely competent and professional group that has taken the role seriously. This CSC has also developed a good rapport within the group that could be attributed to the regular meeting of the group. It takes time to build a good group dynamic and given some members of the CSC may be stepping down in October 2018, it will be necessary to take time to bring newcomers into the group. ___ Thanks Donna From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM To: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Dear all, I have adjusted the latest version and taken on board Martin’s remarks. In addition to Martin’s note about the monthly meetings (# 7 on his list, monthly meetings remain to be required), I want to point out to the text in the report itself: 4.3.8 Monthly meeting requirement The RT and the CSC discussed whether the monthly meeting requirement should be maintained as we recognized that a considerable amount of the work undertaken by the CSC in the first 12 months of its existences was related to developing its own operating procedures and other documentation, such as the Remedial Action Plan, and looking forward there may not be a need to meet so frequently. The CSC recommended that the monthly meeting requirement remain in place for the immediate future; however as the work of the CSC becomes more routine, and subject to all CSC members being in agreement, the CSC might carry out its monthly assessment and discuss and prepare the report of their findings without the need for a meeting. May I suggest to change the current text: The CSC shall meet at least once every month via teleconference at a time and date agreed upon members of the CSC. To: The CSC will meet as frequently and in a manner as needed and agreed upon by the members of the CSC to ensure the assessment of the monthly performance reports by the IANA Function Operator and the monthly publication of the CSC findings. Please advise if you want to change the text. Kind regards, Bart From: Martin Boyle <martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com<mailto:martin.boyle.hertford@ntlworld.com>> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 16:22 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "'Austin, Donna'" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Hi all, I’ve gone through Bart’s latest draft. Key issues for me are: 1. There will need to be some cleaning up if the word version sees the light of day as it does have hidden revision marks. 2. Contents list should be consistent with the section headings in the report (I would prefer us to use the heading in the body of the report!). Completed, headings of report 3. Executive summary paragraph 3: “… which included discussions with the CSC, the outgoing President of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the independent members of the PTI Board and the direct customers of the IANA Naming Functions.” Completed 4. 4.3.2 paragraph 5: “… This has proved to be a factor contributing to the success of the CSC.” Completed 5. Heading 5 does not need hyphens and add “which are” after observations. Completed 6. Section 7, Membership Selection Process paragraph 4 (“A representative of….”): Council need to be in the plural as it refers to both the ccNSO and GNSO. Completed 7. Meetings: Just to note that the first paragraph requires there to be a charter amendment before the CSC can move to dropping meetings when there is nothing to discuss. 8. Meetings there needs to be a space between the last two paragraphs. Completed That’s it from me Martin From: CSC-Review <csc-review-bounces@icann.org<mailto:csc-review-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 09 April 2018 12:08 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CSC-Review] [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] Final version Initial report Donna, All, Please find included the WORD version of the Initial Report. This version is updated to take in all suggestions Donna made ( see below). In addition please find included the language for posting and seeking feed-back from the broader community. As you will see I will ask to open the public comment 10 April, and run it until Friday 1 June, and have the staff summary available at or around 8 June 2018. Unless ther are major hick-ups, this would allow you to submit the final report at or around 15 June 2018, in time for adoption at the Panama meeting. Please note you are scheduled for the upcoming CSC call ( Monday 16 April, 20.00 UTC). Kind regards, Bart Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ccNSO&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=xMT8iKXR6QgR3yj0FpWxkj76GXxesKjois4q0plUnJQ&e=> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_ccnso_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=7e-EfbotrKWQ7HCezPpI7Lp5IfFGHeImpZ6TV5yIlAc&e=> http://ccnso.icann.org[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ccnso.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=nC4gfbyyEQpMRtwgTZRqwi_KEPkorJJN6BPIwtsjBWQ&m=eCoymlRZk4j3FuyeKegNWl7kvZX_9Bggcnl2MnI2OUk&s=NQgb3u3bXd55DkqyaUIaG8CTRr-F3jVFpF8i5H8_7hw&e=> -- From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Monday 9 April 2018 at 00:35 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: "CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>" <CSC-review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-review@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [EXTERNAL] [CSC-Review] Final version Initial report Hi Bart This looks great, thank you. I found a couple of minor things and will note them here as the word doc was only the report and nothing else. Executive Summary Need an extra line between paras 5 and 6 Under 4.3.2 Para 4, second sentence: limited mandate HAS made it ... Para 7, need a period between ... IANA Functions Operator and The Proposed Amended Charter Scope of Responsibilities Para 6, after Remedial Action Procedures please put (RAP). And that’s all I have. I would like to see the language for the posting page before it goes up if that’s possible. Thanks again Bart Donna Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find included the (draft) final version of the initial report. If no comments by Monday COB CET I will use this version for publication. Unfortunately the PDF version does not show the deleted sections. Finally I noticed that the following sentence was still included in the version Donna circulated under the review section: The CSC or the IANA Functions Operator can request a review or change to service levels. Any proposed changes to service levels as a result of the review must be agreed to by the ccNSO and GNSO. I deleted it as it superfluous given the new language under scope of responsibilities. Kind regards, Bart <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.pdf> <Initial Report CSC Charter Review Team.docx> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=FVHNfMMP3AUnXKwxDzLtY6uDFrUdpG1oNfcYjzD9gZU&s=n8TdLaCyCO5DLqaCAxbG4LTJTi_qyEO4WMQIvxna064&e=> _______________________________________________ CSC-Review mailing list CSC-Review@icann.org<mailto:CSC-Review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/csc-review<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_csc-2Dreview&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=FVHNfMMP3AUnXKwxDzLtY6uDFrUdpG1oNfcYjzD9gZU&s=n8TdLaCyCO5DLqaCAxbG4LTJTi_qyEO4WMQIvxna064&e=>