ŒNegotiation Call¹ 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)