Transcript

Transcript CWG DT-M meeting 18 March.doc

Transcript CWG DT-M meeting 18 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8sy76y77d9/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cwg-iana-18mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda:

1. Welcome

2. Roll call

3. Suggestions to agenda

4. Is it the desire of the members that I lead DT-M or is there another volunteer?

5. Discussion of first draft of deliverable template that Marika prepared

6. Discussion of the proposed escalation procedures taken from an effort by some ccTLD and gTLD registries

a.       Note that I received a new version of this today but haven’t had time to review it.

b.      The source document should be made public shortly.

c.       Go over escalation procedures as needed

d.      Questions?  Reactions? Critique?

e.      Does it make sense to use this as our starting point?

7. Next steps

Notes

• Chuck confirmed as lead for DT M (staff to update DT status overview accordingly)
• Would it be sufficient for regional TLD organisations to escalate via CSC or would there be a need for a direct escalation mechanism?
• Will unaffiliated ccTLDs be comfortable to go via the ccNSO? Will they have direct access to the CSC?
• Has the ombudsman any role?
• Ability to participate in the process should not be limited by membership criteria
• New version of draft escalation mechanisms expected to be published tomorrow morning (part of a larger document that also addresses other issues)
• Should there be intermediary steps before it gets escalated to CSC? - depends on the issue. If it is structural / SLE related (systemic), it would go via the CSC. Other issues such as, for example, not being treated fairly could have another path (for example, the ombudsman?). 
• Scalable entry point needed, so CSC makes sense
• Next call on Friday - 

Action (Marika): Check with ombudsman whether there could be a role in the draft escalation mechanisms and whether he sees that within his current mandate. 

Action (Chuck): To update document adding additional draft steps and share those with the DT for review / input.

Questions for IANA Staff: 

• • Is there currently a customer service interface for direct customers from which an escalation can take place?

Action Items

Action (Marika): Check with ombudsman whether there could be a role in the draft escalation mechanisms and whether he sees that within his current mandate. 

Action (Chuck): To update document adding additional draft steps and share those with the DT for review / input.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Marika Konings:Welcome to the DT M meeting of 18 March 2015

  Brenda Brewer:Hi Avri! 

  Avri Doria:hi

  erick iriarte:hi

  Brenda Brewer:THey will start now

  erick iriarte:no, i'm a echo :)

  Marika Konings:a comfortable 14.30 in Brussels ;-)

  erick iriarte:nop

  Avri Doria:happy to have you lead

  erick iriarte:you are my leader :)

  erick iriarte:only a comment: not all the cctlds are in ccnso :) but a lot of cctlds (not included in ccnso) are in regional organizations :)

  erick iriarte:if i'm correct some gtlds are members of some regional organizations (in the case of lactld i remember have a couple)

  Avri Doria:als the CCWG is investigating the Ombudsman role as part of WS1, so if a change was needed it could be included.

  erick iriarte:ok

  Avri Doria:is that a customer service entry point

  Marika Konings:Avri, could you repeat your question?

  erick iriarte:fine

  erick iriarte:question: dnssec project is related to IANA or to ICANN ?

  Avri Doria:that is tru.  we do not know that a perated iana would have one.

  Avri Doria:... separated IANA ...

  Marika Konings:I would guess...

  Marika Konings:I wondered the same thing and that is all I could come up with

  Marika Konings:I have a couple of other calls in the next few hours so you may get there first ;-)

  erick iriarte:me :/