Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-C Meeting #6 on 8 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895505 Action Items Action Staffan: draft note to reflect concerns of DT C first for DT C Action Bernie and Bart look at template to submit information and material Action staff: Send Doodle poll for call l on Friday 10 April. (completed) Notes CSC Charter Version includes everybody's comments Did everybody read latest version? Comment Staffan: Comments from DT M Stephanie Donna :Question, what is overriding DT? Issue around remit of CSC Ability for CSC to provide sub-committees Discussion of CSC charter (Stephanie version) Mission Issue around Mission third paragraph: should CSC be mepowered to initiate communicate process? Comment Martin: CSC should defer issue up to ccNSO and GNSO. triggered by work of the CCWG, whereby Staffan: CSC should be triggering entity, what are triggers also discussed in DT M Need to define terms as suggested (serious and persistent deficiencies. Donna: Alternative is to send it up to ccNSO and GNSO., despite of recommendations of CCWG, which are not known yet. Martin: Referencing up, avoids the need to defeine terms. Avoids Stephanie: day-to day monitoring is the core activity. there is a need to handle the issues. Mission statement needs to be updated Scope of Responsibilities Issue that individual concerns handled in timely way. Comment: Keep in Annex or as part of SLE. Martin: CSC viewed as avenue to deal with complaints of individual operators Need a second level Donna: Take out text out and keep it for the CSC basic document Should periodic reviews of SOW be under remit of CSC? Martin: should be picked up by GNSO and ccNSO Staffan: Keep as placeholder Suggested changes by David Conrad: Martin: Not happy with introducing an Authorization Function. David: Role of Authorization This is about deployment of technological changes, NOT about changes to the root zone file. Example, changes to changes Need of some body, with oversight, empowerd to create body of experts that are able to provide oversight. Staffan: Need for this role is clear, however questionable whether absolutely necessary for CSC to do. If not within CSC, where to put it? Martin: It woul dneceesary to use the regualr meeting, but looking at ad-hoc process. IANA Function Operator should consult widely. Donna: in interest of time. What is result of consultation, what is next logical step. Await language from David Composition Donna: The GNSO is much larger body, hence introduction of non-registry liaison Martin: Balance issue. ccTLD perform some of the roles Staffan: depends on existence of MRT. Keep in as placeholder. Stephanie: supports Donna fro the recors. The balance should be between gTLD and ccTLD operators Donna: Selection process, copied from SSAC. Unclear whether to be included Term of representatives. Term of 2 years agreed, Meetings: Agreed Secretariat: IANA Function Operator Review: Separate review charter from review of performance Process for remedial action Focus on Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. Who may inititaite second process, who has standing? Martin: major issues with remedial role of CSC, in particular for individual cases. Only is case of systemic failures potential role for CSC. General question: who should have a role Donna: According to charter CSC could play a role, but not as a mediator, however need to avoid possibility of forum-shopping CSC only customers Staffan: will take views back to DT M. Need to communicate concerns. Action Staffan: draft note to reflect concerns of DT C first for DT C Martin: Ensuring IANA Function Operator keeps up Service na service levels. Sidley view seems to be more in line with view DT M ( see page 6) Recommendation Document Format is for shorter set off recommendations. Action Bernie and Bart look at template to submit information and material Action staff: Send Doodle poll for call l on Friday 10 April.
