Martin, Are you referring to the last DT call or the last CWG call? Thanks. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: 10 September 2015 12:29 To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>; dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Importance: High Hi all, At our last call I raised a number of concerns that I had with the draft. I am afraid that these remain in place in the draft we are discussing this evening. My issues are: 1. We have not discussed the process by which the recommendations from the IANA functions operator are checked and approved. Currently this is a role that is entirely within the IANA functions operator - the IANA team provides a report to the ICANN Board which checks to see whether due process has been followed and that the relevant tests have been documented and explained. This is an internal review now. Who should carry out what is essentially a check that the IANA team has carried out its work correctly? I'd be inclined to say the PTI Board (as the body *directly* responsible for the IANA functions operation): it has ICANN appointed directors - one of these could ensure that ICANN's interests are properly represented. It could be argued that this should remain with the ICANN Board, but that would give have split responsibilities, which is messy. It also puts the decision into the policy-authority's role, so there will need to be caution about the separation of policy and operation. 2. There is an introduction of independent verification parties and third party review. Given our decision to avoid duplicating the NTIA authorisation role to avoid setting new gatekeepers, I do not welcome the introduction of an independent verification party and there certainly needs to be clear accountability for that entity. While I understand that an ICANN Board decision process could be seen as a third party decision, I would like us to introduce clarity in what we expect - in this case the choice between PTI and ICANN Boards having the role of ticking off the change proposal. 3. Emergency transaction times This is, I believe, included in the ICANN-NTIA contract. I still do not understand why this does not appear in the tables and I do not want it to be lost when the templates are completed. I would suggest the following changes in the current draft to take into account these concerns. I have tried to make them neutral - I am conscious that a lot of work is still needed to populate the SLEs and some of the decisions on process flow might then get reflected in more precise wording on who does what. * Page 8 Category IV: change "... and having that report reviewed externally ..." to "... and having that report reviewed following agreed processes (either by the PTI Board or by the ICANN Board) ..." I would also welcome a commitment to discuss where this operational oversight should lie in the new structure. * Page 11 last row: change "Time for third-party review of request (e.g.by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board adoption of the change report." I could also accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 15 A4 row: change "waiting on ICANN Board or other independent verification parties ..." to "waiting on [PTI or ICANN] Board for adoption of change report ...". I could also accept "waiting for [PTI or ICANN] process verification and approval...". * Page 16 B4 row: I'd prefer to see this new row deleted: it appears to have the sole function of introducing a third-party review. I _could_ accept "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] review of process - Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." * Page 17 Process performance note: incorporate in the table * Page 23 top full row of table: change " Time for third-party review of request (e.g. by ICANN Board of Directors or other independent verification parties)" to ""Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board review and adoption of change report" or "Time for [PTI or ICANN] Board process verification and approval." Thanks Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: 04 September 2015 16:49 To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday. Dear all Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning the IANA Server Level Expectation document. As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised (red-lined).. A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally ratify next wee (on our 10th Sept call). I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document and for checking the requested (Rev1) updates. Have a good w/end all Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship