Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA DT-M Meeting #5 - 2 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895090 Action Items * * ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies of flow charts for edit. Else staff can regenrate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms * ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman * ACTION: staff to update Step 2, 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator * ACTION: Staffan to take Step 2 - Escalation to CSC back to DT-C - CSC for them to discuss staffing, etc. * ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG] * ACTION: staff to schedule next call. Notes - Review of Scoping document and six questions; qA,B,D,E covered in existing draft; qC,F not discussed yet - perhaps modify qC for ccTLDs that do not belong to ccNSO Review of draft DT-M - 2 April 2015.doc - Summary, page 1 seemed acceptable - Annex X - Root Zone Emergency Process - Roles defined in flowcharts will need to be updated to reflect general roles and not specific entities ACTION: Marilia to find original soft copies for edit. Else staff can regenerate flow charts. 1) Change RZM and IFO terms - Emergency Process - no changes proposed to process itself; Stepp by Step descriptions will need RZM and IFO edits as well. - not clear how long current Emergency Procedures take; needed from an SLE perspective; how long each step would take; 4 Hours is window; difficult to be presciptive, depends on issue type (case by case basis); work with VRSN and NTIA - Kim from IANA best contact re: SLAs/SLEs - Annex Y - IANA Customer Service Complaint Process - Basically divided into two steps based on feedback from IANA - Combines processes discussed in Istanbul with existing procedures; eliminated CEO step (interim) - Step 1 - internal to IANA Functions Operator; begin with email to <mailto:escaaltion@iana.org> escalation@iana.org; if not closed, escalation to Functions Liaison; then Program Mgr; options to escalate to Ombudsman - remainder of text is what is listed on <http://iana.org/> iana.org, with slight adjustments to terminology - Should c) be retitled to IANA Functions Operator Ombudsman? - why Ombudsman and not CSC? Ombudsman not quick in resolution. CSC is involved, idea to use Ombudsman as a mediator prior to CSC. DT so far, Ombudsman is an optional path ACTION: staff to confirm anyone can use Ombudsman - for Complaints, ack in 1 Biz day; if needs to be escalated to Kim, then 2 Biz days to resolve issue; ACK to requestor; Resolve of if needed escalate to Elise; Expectation set with requestor - Step 2 - Use of CSC; if issue not resolved in step 1; Implementation issues for this process; staffing, notification; cost for Mediator - NTIA were to act as external "mediator"; external party needs to be knowledgeable of IANA operations; Cost not so much issue, but knowledge important; Benefit of NTIA to offer external service; CSC would replace role that NTIA plays now.2B is new step different from NTIA; professional mediator - 2B - CSC "may" involve mediator - supported - 2C - Problem Mgmt process - optional - CWG Istanbul; stewardship role held in affiliated company or which ever agreed model; point is that Steward needs to be informed; Mgmt of ICANN need to be informed - Discussion - by escalation to Step 2 for CSC, conceivably by day 3 -5 CSC could be involved; question is how CSC can manage this short runway ACTION: Staffan to take this back to DT-C - CSC Annex Z - IANA Problem Mgmt. - new procedure - May require more details; how much implementation details are required? Collaboration with DT-C on how the CSC could handle this process - What triggers one step to the next - May need to add steps RE: what CCWG comes up with accountability mechanisms. Complete escalation path to accountability mechanisms as necessary. - Need to determine "periodic audits" as to who will perform them; refer to DT-N - trigger to find new contractor (RFP) as a step prior to "spilling the board"; DTM if such an option should be an escalation step. Yet to be determined by CCWG if that is an option. CWG can recommend a "bylaw" that when x happens, that RFP be invoked...to that effect. - Step 6 "Use of bylaws mechanisims" - Refer to CCWG?? Fundamental bylaw ACTION: staff add "6. Initiate RFP or Process [mechanism yes to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental Bylaw definition in CCWG] Scope Questions: a) What can an individual registry operator do if IANA service is not provided in a timely and/or satisfactory manner (e.g., if SLEs are not met)? b) What can be done if there are multiple instances of untimely and or unsatisfactory IANA naming services? c) What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) have in escalating IANA naming services problems? d) What role should the CSC play in the escalation process for IANA name services problems? e) If IANA naming services problems cannot be solved at the CSC level, how and to whom should the problem be escalated? f) What role, if any, do the other SO/ACs have in escalating IANA name services issues?
