Trang, Please see my responses below. Note that I added DT-M as a cc in case any of the members want to comment. Chuck From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:21 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: iotf@icann.org Subject: IANA Operational Escalation Mechanisms Dear Chuck, As a follow-up to today’s IOTF call, I am reaching out to summarize the 2 areas relating to Annex I and Annex J that we are seeking clarification. 1. Annex I: IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions Section 1 of paragraph 1140 of the CWG proposal says: “Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process – This process is for anyone who has a complaint about IANA services. The CWG-Stewardship has modified the current process used by ICANN by adding some steps at the end. For further details, please see Annex I.” This text implies that the only modifications to the current IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure) are the addition of new steps to Phase 2 of the process as reflected in Annex I. [Chuck Gomes] The text is somewhat misleading because as noted below the ‘ICANN President and CEO’ escalation step was removed. The current IANA Service Complaint Resolution Process has the following escalation steps: IANA Function Liaison for Root Zone Management IANA Functions Program Manager ICANN President and CEO ICANN Ombudsman However, paragraph 1367 of Annex I, which falls in the part of the process where we were not expecting changes due to the language of paragraph 1140, states: “The complainant could send an e-mail to escalation@iana.org<mailto:escalation@iana.org> and provide the ticket numbers of the requests where the problem arose. If the problem is not resolved, IANA staff will escalate the problem to the following team members in this order as applicable: IANA Function Liaison for Root Zone Management; IANA Functions Program Manager; and Ombudsman (voluntary step).” [Chuck Gomes] g We would like to get a clarification as to whether the omission of "ICANN President and CEO” in paragraph 1367 of Annex I was as intentional or accidental. [Chuck Gomes] As I suspected on the call this week, it was intentional. Thanks to Marika for digging into meeting notes to confirm this. From my own personal point of view, considering that anyone can file a complaint in Phase 1, it seems like overkill to escalate a complaint in Phase 1 to the President and CEO, and if it is a recurring problem or of a more significant nature, registry operations or the ccNSO or GNSO may escalate it further via Phase 2. 2. Annex J: IANA Problem Resolution Process (for IANA naming services only) Annex J contains 3 flowcharts. Flowcharts #1 and #3 are titled the same “IANA Problem Resolution Process,” but the contents of the flowcharts differ. We would like clarification as to whether the differences are intentional and if yes, under what circumstances would the process in each flow chart apply. [Chuck Gomes] As you can see, the one on page 115 includes the PTI Board step and the one on page 113 does not. The one with the PTI Board step matches the steps in paragraph 1384 on page 112 so it should be used. I am not sure why there was even a need to include the IANA Problem Resolution Process flow chart twice. I suggest deleting the first occurrence. That makes logical sense not only because it is incomplete but also because the last step in the CSC row of the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process for Naming Related Functions ends with ‘IANA Problem Resolution Process (see next page)’. Lastly, for agenda setting purpose, please let us know when you think you’ll be able to provide the clarification. We are scheduled to have 2 calls next week, one on Monday and another on Wednesday. [Chuck Gomes] The clarification has been provided. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Chuck! Trang