‘Negotiation Call’ between DT-C, DT-M, and DT-N

15 April at 13:00 UTC

Review of Edits/Actions:

Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community

Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table)

Action (staff): edit text for Phase 2 and circulate to CWG list prior to Thursday call. Edits include:

Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1"
Update point a) to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO" (drop other text)
Drop b)
Edit d) to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure.

Action (Stephanie): look at special review triggering text

Agenda items:

1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)

2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M

3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions

4. Sidley punch list (including item #2)

Notes:

Optimum is to not add any new structures

1. CSC role in DT-N identified reviews (see table)

DT-N worked on a table of reviews as part of the IANA functions contract. Will review each item and see who/what is responsible and why?
Review monthly performance report -- CSC will cover. This was accepted by all.
Site visit -- CSC determined that site visits were not required. The PRT will reserve the right for site visits
Quarterly performance metrics -- CSC. Accepted by all
Yearly customer survey -- CSC. Accepted by all
Review securirty audit process -- CSC. Accepted by all
Review RZM audit report --CSC. Accepted by all
Review annual audit report -- CSC. Accepted by all

Action (Avri): clarify if 'community review' requires a formal mechanism or this is just put informally to the community

Action (staff): reconcile tables for DT-C and DT-N (each draft contains a similar table)

2. CSC role in Phase 2 and Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z) as identified by DT-M

Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process. is open to anyone in Phase 1 and only open to registries in Phase 2

Phase 1

There is no involvement of the CSC in Phase 1.
Is it ok for anyone to submit a complain in phase 1? No objections
In phase 1, process was adjusted to take CEO out of the escalation path.

Phase 1 escalation ends with involvement of the Ombudsman. If that does not work, then complainant (only if registry) can enter phase 2.

Phase 2

Process is only open to registries in Phase 2
CSC has choice to get incolved or not. Is CSC ok with that role?
CSC getting involved in registries' work is not what DT-C envisions for CSC. CSC involved in mediation could be a liability and conflict issue.

Compromise text for Phase 2:

a) CSC is notified by complainant/IFO (drop other text)

~~[b) If deemed appropriate and feasible by the CSC, the CSC can try to faciliate a solution]~~ (Suggestion to drop b) since CSC does not then need to be involved in decisions. )

c) Direct customer can request a mediation

Comments point by point for phase 2:

Edit intro text to phase 2: "should issues not be included in phase 1"

Point a)

Edit to reflect this language: "CSC is notified by complainant/IFO"

Point b)

Would replacing the word 'mediate' help solve the issue? Mediate is a specific skill. "Facilitate" is acceptable word. "Discuss"? "interact"?
Definition of IFO: DT-M did not go into detail about who would mediate on behalf of IFO.
Square bracket B -- difficult to live with

Point c)

Does the CSC assign a mediator or propose mediation? Difference in role for CSC
Could IANA have a list of mediators and have those results transferred to the CSC

Point d)

Edit to "and/or" for escalation to problem management procedure.

Problem Management Escalation Process (Annex Z)

To what extent what CSC Remedial Action Plan considered in designing IANA Problem Management Escalation Process?
4, 5, and possibly 6, are points of difference.
Can accept the mediation but include community mediation before escalatig through accountability mechanisms.
Perhaps step 5 goes to Periodic Review instead of IRP

3. Triggers and implementation for ultimate separation of IANA functions

review would take place 2 years after transition
review would take place every 5 years
special reviews could be requested by CSC if/where needed (CSC could trigger, but is not alone)