Attendees:
Sub-Group Members: Charles Gomes, Staffan Jonson, Avri Doria, Paul Kane
Staff: Marika Konings, Berry Cobb, Bart Boswinkel, Brenda Brewer
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p85jzilstcd/
The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dtm-07apr15-en.mp3
Agenda
1. Start recording
2. Roll call
3. Discuss Stephan’s input
a. Edits to recommendations
b. Implementation paper
4. For Annex Z, what should we do about:
a. Adding CCWG accountability steps such as spilling the Board and/or separating the IANA functions from ICANN?
b. Adding triggers for escalation steps where needed?
c. Including a step for initiating an RFP?
5. Discuss remaining two questions from the DT-M scoping document
6. Status & action items regarding edits to emergency process figure in Annex X] Already completed?
7. Other action items
8. Next meeting: 12:00-13:30 UTC | 10 April
9. AOB
Notes
Notes 7 April DT M
- Consider adding a paragraph that explains what has been updated / changed compared to existing procedures instead of showing changes line by line.
Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone Maintainer.
- Legal redress via court should remain an option - that is always an option, not precluded by these procedures. Does this need to be made explicit? Possible footnote on other legal remedies that may be pursued?
- All of the escalation procedures should have timeframes associated with them and automatically moves to the next step if not resolved within the timeframe indicated. This is intended to be able to identify how long a certain task would take. It may be difficult as it may depend on when the request is made and issue at hand. Consider including indicative timelines? Already addressed on page 6 ('what is the expected time line') so no further action needed.
Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue applicable legal resources that may be available.
- Keep ombudsman option optional
3. a. Discuss Stephan's input
- Currently IANA team allows anyone to send in complaint - proposed changes would make it more narrow. However, it may be inconsistent with DT-C if it is not limited to direct customers? consider making step 2 of customer service complaint resolution process only available to direct customers should it indeed be an issue? Issues could potentially be raised by non-customers via liaisons in CSC or ombudsman for step 2?
Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would make it imcompatible with DT-C approach
Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC
Action item (staff): accept other edits made
3. b. Implementation Paper
- Circulated to ensure consistency with DT M work (is intended to be part of DT C work)
- Reference to 30 days may need to be updated as it has been taken out from DT M work
4. Annex Z
a. Adding CCWG accountability steps such as spilling the Board and/or separating the IANA functions from ICANN?
b. Adding triggers for escalation steps where needed?
c. Including a step for initiating an RFP?
- Is format / approach with regard to RFP in scope for DT M? May not be feasible in any case before upcoming deadline.
- Are there any triggers that need to be added? Triggers are in the process itself - customer will look for resolution until 'ticket' is closed. May not need further triggers?
Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved, the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes)
Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes.
5. Discuss remaining two questions from the DT-M scoping document:
c) What role, if any, can existing registry organizations such as the ICANN ccNSO or the ICANN gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) have in escalating
IANA naming services problems?
- As all others should have standing to raise issues. However, should these groups have standing for step 2 or should they follow non-direct customer path.
Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint.
f) What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA name services issues?
- Can use complaint process. Should also have access to Problem Management Escalation Process?
Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process
Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to Friday's meeting
Next meeting DT M: 12:00-13:30 UTC | 10 April
Action Items
Action item (staff): Annex X - add paragraph that both table and flow chart are identical to current emergency process apart from the terminology used to refer to IANA Functions Operator and Root zone Maintainer.
Action item (staff): Add footnote to clarify that nothing in here prevents an operator to pursue applicable legal resources that may be available.
Action item (Staffan): take this issue back to DT-C to determine whether original language would make it imcompatible with DT-C approach
Action item (staff): put language in brackets concerning making step two only available for direct customers and alternative escalation for non-direct customers via ombudsman and/or liaisons to CSC
Action item (staff): accept other edits made
Action item (staff): Add step 7: after CCWG work stream 1 accountability mechanisms are approved, the applicable steps for the IANA processes should be added to this process'. Examples include spilling the board, separation of IANA, RFP (note, it was the view of those on the call that these areas are not in scope for DT M but are examples of what may come out of other processes)
Action item (all): review whether additional triggers need to be added or further specified to different steps in the processes.
Action item (staff): add footnote that clarifies it can be an individual, existing regional organizations, or anyone else that has standing to file a complaint.
Action item (all): provide input on whether other SO/ACs should have access to Problem Management Escalation Process
Action item (staff): communicate action items to DT members and encourage input on the list prior to Friday's meeting
Chat Transcript
Marika Konings: (4/7/2015 06:52) Welcome to the DT M meeting of 7 April
Chuck Gomes: (07:02) Hello everyone
Staffan Jonson: (07:02) Hello all
Staffan Jonson: (07:07) I made changes from version dated April 2
Marika Konings: (07:12) I think it is just updating the language
Paul Kane: (07:12) Hello all
Berry Cobb: (07:13) LEt's just foot note the chart and table, that the role titles have been modifed to align to use of CWG
Avri Doria: (07:17) no. that is alwasy at the end of the road.
Staffan Jonson: (07:17) Yes, tehre might be a problem to go to court if you're in an jurisdiction outside of the US
Paul Kane: (07:19) The Court would have to be in the US
Staffan Jonson: (07:20) A footnote might be a good solution
Staffan Jonson: (07:22) This is tricky but: one of the contracted ccTLD:s (7 of them?) could in theory sue within country e.g. France
Marika Konings: (07:22) 'if available'...?
Staffan Jonson: (07:22) I can't see the outcome of that, though
Paul Kane: (07:25) Thanks Staffan
Marika Konings: (07:28) How about an indicative timeframe?
Paul Kane: (07:29) That would address their concerns Marika
Marika Konings: (07:29) Some information is already included on page 6 under what is the expected time line
Marika Konings: (07:30) but this applies specifically to the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process
Paul Kane: (07:31) Thanks all
Staffan Jonson: (07:48) So my take of this is : Should “2 Customers Service Complaint Resolution Process” solely address TLD operator isseus, or is the scoop of the process wider?
Staffan Jonson: (07:48) Yepp I like brackets ;-)
Staffan Jonson: (07:49) I'll try to respons with a mail after 15:00 UTC
Avri Doria: (07:51) my point was that there would be a 2.alt where the indirect customer went to their liaison, or that the ombudsman could redirect and issue to the CSC after discussion.
Avri Doria: (07:52) .... could redirect an issue ...
Avri Doria: (07:56) i need to drop out for another call.
Staffan Jonson: (07:56) At this point I'm happy without number of days
Staffan Jonson: (08:00) :-)
Staffan Jonson: (08:06) before or after Friday 10?
Berry Cobb: (08:07) for item #6, the left brack should be left of Process [Process mechanism yet to be defined]
Staffan Jonson: (08:13) yes
Staffan Jonson: (08:24) Yes a SO/AC could rase an issue, but in what role?
Staffan Jonson: (08:24) As a Liason, or as a member?
Staffan Jonson: (08:28) Yepp
Staffan Jonson: (08:29) Thank You all!
Bart Boswinkel: (08:29) Bye all
