Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review
Dear all, Following Allan's email we circulated the Revisions. From ICANN Org/ PTI side we are further discussing the impact of the amended charter on the RAP and the related proposed changes. We will inform you as soon as possible. Kind regards, Bart On 04/10/18 18:14, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote: Colleagues - as mentioned at the last CSC meeting, the CSC Charter Review requires some changes to the Remedial Action Procedures (RAPs). I am attaching a short document providing a reference to the requirement for change as well as some proposed wording changes to the RAPs themselves. I am hoping that we can get this done in Barcelona. Please let me know if you have any changes or comments.
Dear all, As you will recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier 3 changes were proposed (see email below: Allan MacGillivray 4 October 2018): 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP 3. Ensure in RAP that if CSC detemines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. These changes and the wording was included in the proposed version that was circualed by Allan on 4 October 2018. Following the Barcelona meeting and ICANN/PTI internal discussion the proposal is to limit the updates to the Remedial Action Procedures to inclusion of a change mechanism, which would allow: - Changes to RAP at any time when deemed necessary by PTI (& ICANN Org) and CSC, and - Publication date of amended RAP (after adoption) is date the changes become effective The attached documents include the suggested language in the introductionary paragraph of the RAP. Please note that for editorial purposes the original final sentence of the introductionary paragraph has been moved up. With respect to the other two changes (Ensure the RAPs remain in place if a new IFO should be appointed and The CSC duty to inform the ccNSO and GNSO, in case CSC determines a a performance issue exists) it is advised NOT to include them in the RAP. As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. As to the CSC duty to inform ccNSO and GNSO of an performance issue: The current charter of the CSC stipulates that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if langauge is not identical. Next steps If text can be agreed by CSC, the CSC and PTI need to formally agree to amended text. For avoidance of doubt, PTI will consult ICANN first to seek there approval, as they are part of the escalation process. Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel On 12/10/18 18:22, "Bart Boswinkel" <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: Dear all, Following Allan's email we circulated the Revisions. From ICANN Org/ PTI side we are further discussing the impact of the amended charter on the RAP and the related proposed changes. We will inform you as soon as possible. Kind regards, Bart On 04/10/18 18:14, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote: Colleagues - as mentioned at the last CSC meeting, the CSC Charter Review requires some changes to the Remedial Action Procedures (RAPs). I am attaching a short document providing a reference to the requirement for change as well as some proposed wording changes to the RAPs themselves. I am hoping that we can get this done in Barcelona. Please let me know if you have any changes or comments.
I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms.
James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms.
Dear James, All, One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again. As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are: 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. As to the 2nd proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication. There were no comments with respect to this point. With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC. It is strongly advised not to include it. If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator. In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a new RAP with any new IANA Functions Operator and that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. Including in the RAP -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication. Kind regards, Bart From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms.
Hey Bart thanks for this will review this evening Sent from my iPhone On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear James, All, One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again. As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are: 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. As to the 2nd proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication. There were no comments with respect to this point. With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC. It is strongly advised not to include it. If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator. In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a new RAP with any new IANA Functions Operator and that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. Including in the RAP -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication. Kind regards, Bart From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. <draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf> <draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx> <draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx>
Thanks Bart, I’ll concede on this point and let this continue without further objection, in my opinion I see the RAP more as a standing operational template for the CSC to oversee the IFO (Whomever that may be) however the impression I am getting is that I may be in the rough on that understanding and the consensus on the CSC and PTI/ICANN is that is specific to the current IFO. My personal opinion is that the CSC should avoid building process around a specific IFO and should be more neutral but that may just be my own perspective. Thank you to those who have humoured me on this point and lets get these moved forward. -James On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear James, All, One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again. As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are: 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. As to the 2nd proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication. There were no comments with respect to this point. With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC. It is strongly advised not to include it. If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator. In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a new RAP with any new IANA Functions Operator and that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. Including in the RAP -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication. Kind regards, Bart From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. <draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx><draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx>
Dear all, Given James’ comments from Friday 11 January 2019 (see below), next step would be adoption of amended RAP by the CSC (and PTI, each) in accordance with the appropriate procedures. For the CSC this implies all 4 members need to be present at the meeting ( the quorum rule) and at least 3 of the 4 members need to be in favour of the proposal. Included again is the latest version of the amended RAP ( the PDF contains the clean version without track changes, the word version, the redlined version) Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Friday, 11 January 2019 at 14:12 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review Thanks Bart, I’ll concede on this point and let this continue without further objection, in my opinion I see the RAP more as a standing operational template for the CSC to oversee the IFO (Whomever that may be) however the impression I am getting is that I may be in the rough on that understanding and the consensus on the CSC and PTI/ICANN is that is specific to the current IFO. My personal opinion is that the CSC should avoid building process around a specific IFO and should be more neutral but that may just be my own perspective. Thank you to those who have humoured me on this point and lets get these moved forward. -James On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: Dear James, All, One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again. As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are: 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. As to the 2nd proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication. There were no comments with respect to this point. With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC. It is strongly advised not to include it. If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator. In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a new RAP with any new IANA Functions Operator and that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. Including in the RAP -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication. Kind regards, Bart From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. <draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx><draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx>
I have just reviewed the attached RAP and am happy with the contents. However given the document is focused on plans and milestones I can’t help thinking it would benefit greatly from some graphical representations of those plans, it would make it a lot easier to read. Brett -- Brett Carr Manager DNS and Network Engineering Nominet UK From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Monday, 14 January 2019 at 16:18 To: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org> Cc: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review Dear all, Given James’ comments from Friday 11 January 2019 (see below), next step would be adoption of amended RAP by the CSC (and PTI, each) in accordance with the appropriate procedures. For the CSC this implies all 4 members need to be present at the meeting ( the quorum rule) and at least 3 of the 4 members need to be in favour of the proposal. Included again is the latest version of the amended RAP ( the PDF contains the clean version without track changes, the word version, the redlined version) Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: Friday, 11 January 2019 at 14:12 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review Thanks Bart, I’ll concede on this point and let this continue without further objection, in my opinion I see the RAP more as a standing operational template for the CSC to oversee the IFO (Whomever that may be) however the impression I am getting is that I may be in the rough on that understanding and the consensus on the CSC and PTI/ICANN is that is specific to the current IFO. My personal opinion is that the CSC should avoid building process around a specific IFO and should be more neutral but that may just be my own perspective. Thank you to those who have humoured me on this point and lets get these moved forward. -James On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:24, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: Dear James, All, One of the action items from last meeting was to list the arguments to a limited update of the Remedial Action Procedures. For your convenience I have included the proposed amended RAP in redline and clean version again. As you may recall the amended charter, which is now effective, suggests that the Remedial Action Procedures (RAP) need to be updated. Earlier, 3 changes were proposed (see email from Allan MacGillivray dated 4 October 2018). These changes are: 1. Inclusion of a change mechanism 2. Ensure in RAP that if CSC determines a performance issue exists, it will inform the ccNSO and GNSO and will be keep the informed. 3.. Ensure in RAP that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP In the email dated 11 November 2018, the suggestion was NOT to include the 2nd and 3rd proposed change. As to the 2nd proposed change: the duty of the CSC to inform ccNSO and GNSO of a performance issue is included in the current charter of the CSC where it is stated that "in the event that the CSC invokes the RAP, it will be required to inform the RySG, ccNSO and GNSO Councils and provide regular status updates". This is a requirement for the CSC and clearly stated in the Charter. Including a similar obligation in the RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org) may create confusion, in particular if language is not identical, and unnecessary duplication. There were no comments with respect to this point. With respect to the 3rd point to ensure that the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO, in the original email it was mentioned that the RAP is a procedure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with certain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC. It is strongly advised not to include it. If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. In James’ email of 12 November 2018, James stated that he believe(s) that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. To be clear the role oversee on behalf of the customers is NOT a stake, nor is at stake that the RAP should remain in place: this is explicitly included in the current charter (section Scope of responsibilities, 7th paragraph) Should a new IANA Functions Operator be appointed, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team1, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will require the CSC to review and revise the RAP as necessary with the new operator. In addition, the CSC Charter review team noted the following: The RT remains of the view that there should be a requirement to agree a new RAP with any new IANA Functions Operator and that this should be specified at the time of appointing a new operator, for example through the recommendations from the Special IANA Naming Function Review Team3, and could be ensured by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils when appropriate. Including in the RAP -as suggested – that if new IFO should be appointed, the new operator would be required to agree to the existing RAP, which are procedures between CSC and PTI (& ICANN Org), may create confusion, and unnecessary duplication. Kind regards, Bart From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 09:42 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review James, The power for the CSC to keep the RAP is not under discussion, it flows from the CWG-Stewardship and was reconfirmed through the CSC Charter review and is included in the current Charter. The question is whether the RAP should include such a mechanism as well. The RAP is about the remedial action process between the CSC, PTI (& ICANN). Kind regards, Bart From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Date: Monday 12 November 2018 at 22:46 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Cc: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [Ext] Revisions to RAPs Flowing from CSC Charter Review I believe that this is a misunderstanding, the function of the CSC is to oversee on behalf of the customers of the IANA functions, the IANA functions operator (See paragraph 130 of the final CWG-Stewardship) this is currently PTI and ICANN but the CSC is within its remit as defined in the CWG stewardship proposal to state that we will to the RAP to remain in place for future IFOs (Which of course we all hope will never happen). As defined in paragraph 131 the CSC does not have a mandate to inmate a chance in the IFO (We have another process for that) but in paragraphs 139-141 at no point is the distinction below mentioned and from my recollection was ever intended. I would personally object to the proposal not to include this requirement in the RAPs. On 12 Nov 2018, at 21:26, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> wrote: As to ensuring the RAP remain in place post selection new IFO: The RAP is a procudure between CSC and PTI (& ICANN) on how to deal with cetain performance issues. Introducing an obligation to ensure adoption by a new IANA Function Operator is well beyond the limited scope of the Remedial Action Procedures and limited role of the CSC, and should therefore not be included. It is suggested that If it ever comes to a situation that a new IFO needs to be appointed, the requirement that the RAP should remain in place should be dealt with through the new contract between parties, and the appropriate consultation mechanisms. <draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.pdf><draft RAP revisions November 2018 clean.docx><draft RAP revisions November 2018 redline.docx>
participants (3)
-
Bart Boswinkel -
Brett Carr -
James Gannon