Re: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat
Dear Colleagues, For PTI’s action items below: “Action 02 30-052019: PTI to check whether IANA page on complaint needs to be updated to reflect current status IANA due by June meeting.” This action item has been completed. The Customer Services Complaint Resolution Process page on https://www.iana.org/help/complaint-procedure has been updated to reflect our discussion from the last meeting that escalated complaints relating to naming functions are also reported to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). “Action 03 28 2019: PTI Staff to introduce proposal for ccTLD create Service Level by May meeting. (deferred until June)” Please see attached discussion paper for consideration at our next meeting. Best regards, Naela From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 9:02 AM To: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org> Subject: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Dear CSC, Please find notes and AC chat from the May CSC meeting attached. Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/bR2f3kY8xviOOTmJ17Xv33dhUrs8PFZjbPvCfw... Decisions 1. Decision 01 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted the following general decision- making procedure for proposals included in documents. a. The chair calls for discussion/comments on the final proposal, by full membership. b. If no comments, there is a formal vote by the appointed members at a quorate meeting (all members are present). c. The chair designates the outcome of the vote. A proposal is accepted if 3 of the members vote in favor. d. The outcome of the vote is recorded in the notes and published, with a reference to the proposal, which is published on wiki space. 2. Decision 02 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously Technical Check Threshold Analysis Process SLA, and informs direct customers accordingly. 3. Decision 03 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously the LGR SLA document as proposed by PTI 4. Decision 04 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously all measures to implement the four (4) recommendations CSC Effectiveness review team. Action Items Pending · Action 03 28 2019: PTI Staff to introduce proposal for ccTLD create Service Level by May meeting. (deferred until June) New · Action 01 30-052019 Secretariat to draft communication to inform direct customers about SLA changes · Action 02 30-052019: PTI to check whether IANA page on complaint needs to be updated to reflect current status IANA due by June meeting · Action 03 30-052019: Full CSC to fill out skill matrix as adopted. Secretariat to circulate reminder. · Action 04 30-052019: CSC chair to query issues with respect to (non-granting) travel funding request with relevant ICANN staff and Board members. Report back by July meeting. · Action 05 30-052019: Secretariat to circulate Doodle poll for meeting in week of 10 June. Best, Ria
Naela – thanks for pushing forward to deliver a draft of the proposed change to the ccTLD SLA. I have made some comments in the attached document. But one very general one is that the ccTLD community is very, very particular about terminology and for them, the reference document is the Final Report of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group’. I recommend that you stick to the terminology therein which refers to ccTLD ‘delegations and transfers’, rather than ‘creations/transfers’. I think that we can avoid some comments if Bart were to closely review the first paragraph in the background section to ensure that PTI is not seen to be deviating from establish orthodoxy. I have one other comment/question. The table labelled ‘Current and proposed SLA thresholds’ makes reference to ‘new SLAs’. For example, ‘Validation and Review after each submission’ – 100% within 14 days’ is referred to as a ‘new SLA’. Maybe its just my own understanding, but I thought that ‘ccTLD delegation and Transfer’ is the SLA and that activities within it, such as ‘validation and review’, are metrics that make up that SLA. Have I got this wrong? Otherwise, if we call this a ‘new SLA’, then the process is very different. Regards Allan From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Naela Sarras Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 7:10 PM To: Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>; ICANN-CSC@icann.org Subject: [EXT] Re: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Dear Colleagues, For PTI’s action items below: “Action 02 30-052019: PTI to check whether IANA page on complaint needs to be updated to reflect current status IANA due by June meeting.” This action item has been completed. The Customer Services Complaint Resolution Process page on https://www.iana.org/help/complaint-procedure has been updated to reflect our discussion from the last meeting that escalated complaints relating to naming functions are also reported to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). “Action 03 28 2019: PTI Staff to introduce proposal for ccTLD create Service Level by May meeting. (deferred until June)” Please see attached discussion paper for consideration at our next meeting. Best regards, Naela From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 9:02 AM To: "ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>> Subject: [ICANN-CSC] CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Dear CSC, Please find notes and AC chat from the May CSC meeting attached. Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/bR2f3kY8xviOOTmJ17Xv33dhUrs8PFZjbPvCfw... Decisions 1. Decision 01 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted the following general decision- making procedure for proposals included in documents. a. The chair calls for discussion/comments on the final proposal, by full membership. b. If no comments, there is a formal vote by the appointed members at a quorate meeting (all members are present). c. The chair designates the outcome of the vote. A proposal is accepted if 3 of the members vote in favor. d. The outcome of the vote is recorded in the notes and published, with a reference to the proposal, which is published on wiki space. 2. Decision 02 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously Technical Check Threshold Analysis Process SLA, and informs direct customers accordingly. 3. Decision 03 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously the LGR SLA document as proposed by PTI 4. Decision 04 - 30 05 2019: The CSC adopted unanimously all measures to implement the four (4) recommendations CSC Effectiveness review team. Action Items Pending · Action 03 28 2019: PTI Staff to introduce proposal for ccTLD create Service Level by May meeting. (deferred until June) New · Action 01 30-052019 Secretariat to draft communication to inform direct customers about SLA changes · Action 02 30-052019: PTI to check whether IANA page on complaint needs to be updated to reflect current status IANA due by June meeting · Action 03 30-052019: Full CSC to fill out skill matrix as adopted. Secretariat to circulate reminder. · Action 04 30-052019: CSC chair to query issues with respect to (non-granting) travel funding request with relevant ICANN staff and Board members. Report back by July meeting. · Action 05 30-052019: Secretariat to circulate Doodle poll for meeting in week of 10 June. Best, Ria
Hi Allan, Quoting Allan MacGillivray on Friday June 07, 2019:
But one very general one is that the ccTLD community is very, very particular about terminology and for them, the reference document is the Final Report of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group’. I recommend that you stick to the terminology therein which refers to ccTLD ‘delegations and transfers’, rather than ‘creations/transfers’. I think that we can avoid some comments if Bart were to closely review the first paragraph in the background section to ensure that PTI is not seen to be deviating from establish orthodoxy.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would note that terminology is not something new that is being introduced with this document - the lineage dates at least to the community's transition proposal that informed the SLAs. The "SLE Working Group Report on Service Level Expectation for IANA Root Zone Management (Post-Transition)", from what was known as Design Team A, reads: Category III (Creating or Transferring a gTLD)—Requests to create (“delegate”) or transfer (“redelegate” or “assign”) a generic top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy and contractual requirements are met associated with a change of control for the TLD. While the key processing is performed elsewhere within ICANN, the IANA processing is significant and therefore distinguishes this type of request from a routine change request. Category IV (Creating or Transferring a ccTLD)—Requests to create or transfer a country-code top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy requirements are met. This processing is performed by IANA staff, and includes performing additional analysis on the change request, producing a report, and having that report reviewed externally(including verification that all existing registration data has been successfully transferred from the old to new Registry operator). This processing is significant, and is normally substantially longer than a routine change request, and therefore should be distinguished. kim
Kim - it’s just a question of which documents one wants to be consistent with. Allan Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org<mailto:kim.davies@iana.org>> Date: Friday, Jun 07, 2019, 1:43 PM To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca>> Cc: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras@iana.org<mailto:naela.sarras@iana.org>>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org<mailto:maria.otanes@icann.org>>, ICANN-CSC@icann.org <ICANN-CSC@icann.org<mailto:ICANN-CSC@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [EXT] Re: CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Hi Allan, Quoting Allan MacGillivray on Friday June 07, 2019:
But one very general one is that the ccTLD community is very, very particular about terminology and for them, the reference document is the Final Report of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group’. I recommend that you stick to the terminology therein which refers to ccTLD ‘delegations and transfers’, rather than ‘creations/transfers’. I think that we can avoid some comments if Bart were to closely review the first paragraph in the background section to ensure that PTI is not seen to be deviating from establish orthodoxy.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would note that terminology is not something new that is being introduced with this document - the lineage dates at least to the community's transition proposal that informed the SLAs. The "SLE Working Group Report on Service Level Expectation for IANA Root Zone Management (Post-Transition)", from what was known as Design Team A, reads: Category III (Creating or Transferring a gTLD)—Requests to create (“delegate”) or transfer (“redelegate” or “assign”) a generic top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy and contractual requirements are met associated with a change of control for the TLD. While the key processing is performed elsewhere within ICANN, the IANA processing is significant and therefore distinguishes this type of request from a routine change request. Category IV (Creating or Transferring a ccTLD)—Requests to create or transfer a country-code top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy requirements are met. This processing is performed by IANA staff, and includes performing additional analysis on the change request, producing a report, and having that report reviewed externally(including verification that all existing registration data has been successfully transferred from the old to new Registry operator). This processing is significant, and is normally substantially longer than a routine change request, and therefore should be distinguished. kim
Hi Allan, Thanks for your feedback on the document. I will refrain from making any changes until we have our discussion on Wednesday given that the meeting is in two days. I agree we need to decide what documents we want to be consistent with and let’s see how the discussion goes on Wednesday. For your question about the designation of ‘Validation of Reviews after each submission’, what we are talking about here is changing the definition of what is measured. The original SLA measured the full time staff spent on validation and reviews. In this proposed change, we are suggesting that we focus on time spent on this activity after each submission. I think that you are right though, that is more accurately characterized as metrics to focus on under this SLA category. Best regards, Naela From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:24 PM To: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Cc: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras@iana.org>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <ICANN-CSC@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ICANN-CSC] [EXT] Re: CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Kim - it’s just a question of which documents one wants to be consistent with. Allan Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Date: Friday, Jun 07, 2019, 1:43 PM To: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> Cc: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras@iana.org>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>, ICANN-CSC@icann.org <ICANN-CSC@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [EXT] Re: CSC Meeting 30: Recording, Notes, & Chat Hi Allan, Quoting Allan MacGillivray on Friday June 07, 2019:
But one very general one is that the ccTLD community is very, very particular about terminology and for them, the reference document is the Final Report of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group’. I recommend that you stick to the terminology therein which refers to ccTLD ‘delegations and transfers’, rather than ‘creations/transfers’. I think that we can avoid some comments if Bart were to closely review the first paragraph in the background section to ensure that PTI is not seen to be deviating from establish orthodoxy.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would note that terminology is not something new that is being introduced with this document - the lineage dates at least to the community's transition proposal that informed the SLAs. The "SLE Working Group Report on Service Level Expectation for IANA Root Zone Management (Post-Transition)", from what was known as Design Team A, reads: Category III (Creating or Transferring a gTLD)—Requests to create (“delegate”) or transfer (“redelegate” or “assign”) a generic top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy and contractual requirements are met associated with a change of control for the TLD. While the key processing is performed elsewhere within ICANN, the IANA processing is significant and therefore distinguishes this type of request from a routine change request. Category IV (Creating or Transferring a ccTLD)—Requests to create or transfer a country-code top-level domain. These changes require additional processing by IANA to ensure policy requirements are met. This processing is performed by IANA staff, and includes performing additional analysis on the change request, producing a report, and having that report reviewed externally(including verification that all existing registration data has been successfully transferred from the old to new Registry operator). This processing is significant, and is normally substantially longer than a routine change request, and therefore should be distinguished. kim
participants (3)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Kim Davies -
Naela Sarras