Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-C Meeting #7 on 10 April are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896084 Action Donna & Staffan Raise issues around 1. Potential overlap and divergence in interpretation of CSC with respect to its role in escalation process (limited view) 2. Placeholder for role in development/evolution of (new) services. Potential conflict with strict monitoring role. However recognition role is necessary Notes Mission Includes language why it was established (first sentence) Agreed Include /change to : as it relates to monitoring the performance of..." Last paragraph Agreed Scope of responsibilities First sentence (new) Agreed Change to fifth paragraph: CSC is NOT a dispute mechanism CSC may receive complaints (re statistics, etc.) NOT for individual cases. Staffan: DT M was not pleased with responses (see Staffan's email) Martin: Useful to know, as to why DT M the CSC should go into details of other people problems DTM process approach, Martin: CSC part of potential forum shopping Staffan: Fear of forum shopping. Sooner or later, deadlock of each other Donna: Potential issues may have arisen from one of the papers According to this paper Stephanie: Question from Chuck ( DT M) whether escalation Raise issue at DT leads New sentences As suggested by David Martin: Generally agreement , suggested refinement of language "This consultation is expected to include any *proposed* changes to the IANA services that are underway or are anticipated in the future. " Stephanie Strike underway. Kurt: Retain expertise if necessary, expand the option. Staffan: If CSC has an expended mandate, make it not too big Donna: Await Donna: CSC is first and foremost a monitoring entity. On the other hand David C, changes No Authorization CSC can facilitate consultation, _. IFO should take it forward ad implementation is its responsibility. CSC should not be in the position. Donna: DT CSC is uncomfortable with role of CSC to undertake a role in development There is a need for such a mechanism, but need somewhere else The CSC has an overview role. Overview is typically problem oriented, a reactive function to mend what doesn't work in a predefined order. Development (innovation) of IANA functions is not necessary in the scope of the CSC (maybe rather in IETF) Composition Only change, accepted Terms: Recall of Members New language: Agreed Review Separate the review of charter and effectiveness of CSC itself on -> one Martin: review of charter in two year. Turn round: At the request CSC, GNSO or ccNSO Service levels review targets> it is initiated in one of the annual meetings. Should be driven by need Stephanie: agrees with Martin Review of Service level targets will be most important piece of data for review service Change second paragraph: can be done at request of CSC, ccNSO and GNSO Final Sentence: should be picked - up though in annual meeting, or as part of review of SOW. Martin: Good point Kurt, if SL no longer appropriate -> to be raised. CSC should be able to raise issue and then go through consultation. CSC should not be put in a position to review every 18 month Last paragraph: The CSC or IFO, can request changes any time, any proposed Martin: replace "changes" -> review Donna: need a reasonable quick process to change -------- (04/10/2015 14:45) --------------------- Donna Austin, RySG: The CSC or the IFO can request a review or change to service level targets. Any proposed changes to service level targets as a result of the review must be agreed by the ccNSO and GNSO. Add : in accordance with a pre-defined process Include general sentence around mechanism to define and change processes (to be approved by GNSO and ccNSO)
