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> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via CSC-Review" <CSC-review@icann.org> Reply-To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Date: Friday 15 June 2018 at 03:31 To: "CSC-review@icann.org" <CSC-review@icann.org> Cc: H M Boyle <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
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> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 15 June 2018 17:29 To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; CSC-review@icann.org Cc: H M Boyle <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
participants (2)
-
Bart Boswinkel -
Martin Boyle