ÐÏࡱá > þÿ Š  þÿÿÿ ˆ ‰ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á ƒî ð¿ D¢ bjbjΰΰ 7Ê ¬Ú ¬Ú ޗ e ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ · æ æ J J J J J ÿÿÿÿ ^ ^ ^ 8 – ² „ ^  0 6 6 ( ^ ^ ^ ’ ’ ’ $ ± ¶ g" : & J ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ & J J ^ ^ 4 ; ’ $ J ^ J ^ ’ ÿÿÿÿ \ãVuZÒ ÿÿÿÿ ¶ . ì Q 0  ¡" ä < ¡" J Ì ’ ’ ’ & & ’ ’ ’  ’ ’ ’ ’ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ¡" ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ æ * : ELAINE PRUIS: Thank you Byron. I’m sorry to hear you’re sick. Can you guys hear me okay? BYRON HOLLAND: Yes Elaine. ELAINE PRUIS: Great. Welcome to the CSC meeting number four. This is our December meeting and we’ve got three members on right now. How many liaisons? They all look familiar so I don’t see any… is there anybody who’s just joining now that hasn’t participated before, that would like the introduce themselves? So let’s go on to item number two, which is feedback on the October report, which is distributed on November 30th. We all got a chance to look at it and make some comments and edits. And then it was widely distributed to parties that we thought would be interested in receiving and reviewing the report. Did anybody receive any feedback in response to receiving that report? I’ll just say for the registry group, our chair sent a couple of comments from [INAUDIBLE] about the work that the CSC’s been doing along with a summary in the report. And we didn’t see any feedback whatsoever on the list. And I didn’t receive any feedback personally. So that must mean we’re doing something right. There was no negative feedback. Any other comments on… ELISE LINDENBERG: This is Elise from the GAC. Can you hear me? ELAINE PRUIS: Yes. ELISE LINDENBERG: Yes, okay. I can't raise my [INAUDIBLE] hand. ELAINE PRUIS: Could you speak up a little bit Elise? ELISE LINDENBERG: Yeah, I will try. Can you hear me better now? ELAINE PRUIS: Yes. ELISE LINDENBERG: I’m just... a question. When we send this report to the chairs or the ACs and SOs and this report go in one email to all the SOs and ACs chairs, in one big email with all the names attached to it? All the addresses? Because I haven’t seen a copy of that one, anywhere. Because if I want to ask on the guest list for any response to any comments from the chair, it will be good to have the copy of the chat, of the email that was sent with the report to him. Is that possible, to send it to the CSC list? So we can read the correspondence [INAUDIBLE]? BART BOSWINKEL: Oh, that’s diff… Elise, this is Bart. Being responsible for sending it to the SO/AC chairs list. So that’s a no-brainer. I can put you in copy. So let’s consider it done for the next one. And I can copy you in on all of them but that’s probably overkill. But say if you want to be copied in on the most relevant one, I assume the SO/ACs one, and maybe one or two others. It’s a no-brainer. ELISE LINDENBERG: Yeah, perfect. If the members of the CSC or the [INAUDIBLE] could get a copy at least for the one we find relevant. I can only ask for the ACs and their [INAUDIBLE] ones. Because I mean, we get so many emails from the guest list that it's somewhere, some link to the information to ask for a response. That's why I haven't got anything. I think some of it's truly overloadish. Okay, thank you. ELAINE PRUIS: Byron has a note in here suggesting that Bart try and put a link on the CSC wiki page. If anyone is interested in receiving the report, they could opt-in, sort of like a newsletter subscribe or something? Is that possible? ICANN staff? BART BOSWINKEL: No, that's fine. It should be possible on RSS feed whenever something changes on the CSC, but people should be able to subscribe. Let's check and then get back to you as soon as possible. ELISE GERICH: And Elaine, this is Elise. ELAINE PRUIS: Great. ELISE GERICH: Just want to let you know that the CSC’s response to the report that the PTI submitted, is already posted on the report section of the CSC page. As is the report that the PTI submitted in October. So they are posted on the website. But I think your question is mostly about whether there's a list that you can subscribe to for notifications. Is that correct? ELAINE PRUIS: So this is Byron's notices. Anyone seeking to be put on the list can do so. And I think that would be more of a subscribe to receiving the distribution of the report. Now that's great that it's posted there, so we can send people looking for it there. But it would also be nice if they could just receive it without making the effort each month. Are there any objections to that? ELISE GERICH: Not to my part. I just wanted to clarify that it is posted and that this would be a notification subscription. ELAINE PRUIS: Yeah, I think that was the intention on the request. LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: This is Liman. I strongly suggest having a public list to which anyone can subscribe, which will have notifications of publications that we make. Be that the reports or something else that we want to make. That is a very strong recommendation from my side. Thanks. ELAINE PRUIS: Does that suggestion require discussion or can we proceed and accept that suggestion and move on it? Looks like there's support in the chat from the liaisons for that. Great. So ICANN staff, could you setup a CSC announce public list, where we would announce that a report has been published at the CSC site? All right, and I think we'll move on. So Jay, I'm not sure if you saw, Byron is sick and has lost his voice and had asked if you could possibly chair this meeting. I have reluctantly done the first part. I'm wondering if you could step in now or I should continue? JAY DALY: That's fine. I can if you want me to. Certainly. ELAINE PRUIS: Fabulous. Thank you. Okay over to you Jay. JAY DALY: Okay so we are up to what point on the agenda? ELAINE PRUIS: We're at [INAUDIBLE] three review of system report. JAY DALY: Right. [INAUDIBLE] report of two. Okay, as far as healthy producing notes. Sorry I've been traveling for a couple of hours now while my bus driver's been obviously out in the bar too late. And I think is pretending to deal but was actually falling asleep. So that's really helpful. So do we have any general comments at all, about the report so far? Kal, I think you've got a question online about this year's concurrent versus sequential technical checks? Would you like to explain that a bit? KAL FEHER: Yes, this is Kal Feher for the record. I was just wondering if Elise could maybe go through how those... particularly, I think it was the first technical check, the one that I think the explanation was that things go into a queue. If she could explain the process there and what the shortcoming is and so on. As the submitter that I think caused most of those, it didn't cause us undue disruption. But I'd still like to understand how the whole process works. See if it's maybe an underlying issue. ELISE GERICH: Hi Kal. Thanks for the question and I'll give a very high level comment and then I'll Jim Davis, who's also on the call, chime in if he'd like to speak to this. But the way the Root Zone Management System handles technical checks, as we noted in our short comments, is that it only anticipated, and that is from the time of when the Root Zone management maintainer. Root Zone Management System was designed that we wouldn't have that many requirements because at that time, we just basically had a handful of gTLDs and ccTLDs. And so we thought that the system could handle the way it's designed, where if you get one technical check, the module runs the technical check and then it waits for the completion of that. And then it'll run the next one after that. So the module only handles one request at a time. And they're done sequentially. Now that we have so many more TLDs and so many more requests where this happens, it's become obvious that we need to make some changes to handle concurrent requests, things that are coming in and they're done less serially. So that is on our road map and like I'd mentioned in the media, 2017, we'd like to present to you what our Root Zone Management System road map looks like. So you'll get an idea of the things that we've prioritized and then the things that we have in our pending list to get done at another scheduled time. But Kim, I know you're here. I don't know if you can speak but if you'd like to chime in... KIM CARLSON: Thanks Elise. I think in a high level, that's spot on. Essentially the design of the IZMS that is deployed only runs one technical check at a time. So if there's multiple change requests pending, that need to be checked, those submitted later will wait 'til the first round is done. Historically when we were getting an average of one request a day, that was never an issue. We identified that even prior to these CSC reports that this was becoming an area where potentially they can be run in parallel to the maximum extent possible. So we're rearchitecting the system from the ground up as it pertains to how technical checks are done and we're making architectural changes, including having a separate API and so on. I can get into the technical details if you'd like but fundamentally it should mean that no technical tests for another change request should be en-queued because it's waiting on the technical test to complete for a different change request. JAY DALY: Great, Kal is there anything else you want to pull off on that? KAL FEHER: No, I think I look forward to the more detailed explanation in the road map. But I think for now, as I said, we were not unduly disadvantaged as a result of the long wait times. So it was more curiosity and perhaps concern that our project was perhaps harming the root. JAY DALY: Thank you. So if we all... if you could turn to page four of the Exceptions and Narrative book, Autumn Period. So the first ones [INAUDIBLE] on business days. We've had a discussion about that previously. And that's, as I remember, still something outstanding for us to discuss effectively. is the nature of business over that period of time. Does anyone want to comment on the first one of these, the manual, Logic and Time? No? Okay. Moving on then to the second one. Technical Checks irst. We've just discussed that. That's about serial and parallel testing. And does anyone like to discuss that anymore? Okay then the third ones and fourth ones are down to the timing that it takes for the technical checks, where we've already come back and suggested expanding that outwards. Would anybody like the talk about either of those? Okay, so I think that... does anybody else have any other issues inside the PTI report that they want to raise at this point at all? Right, so there are not comments on that. So the next thing then is going to be the CSC's report. Last time this was written up by ICANN staff on our behalf. Can we assume again that that will take place? Is that an ongoing thing? [INAUDIBLE] of ICANN staff writing out the report for us? TRANG NGUYEN: Jay this is Trang. Certainly as the direction of the CSC is to provide us with some direction as to how you want the report written up. The template is provided with a rating of, I believe excellent, satisfactory, and needs improvement. So if the CSC would like to provide us with some guidance as to how you want the rating to be reflected for the November month and the additional notes for the subsequent sections that you want us to note in the report, then we can certainly write that up for you. JAY DALY: Okay thanks. I'm just checking to see whether there was anything else there. If we work forward, sorry, I have some very detailed notes from Byron here to follow, which are excellent. I'm just making sure that I understand all of them. TRANG NGUYEN: Bart or Ria, do you have the report template, the CSC report template that you could perhaps attach in the Adobe room? Ria OtanesS: Sure just give my one second. JAY DALY: Just as a reminder, there are five sections to the report for us to go through. The characterization of overall performance, where we have effectively three levels there, excellent, satisfactory, and needs improvement. Excellent being PTI met all service level agreements for the month. Satisfactory being that PTI met the service level agreement for percentages [INAUDIBLE] determined from that metric. Which in this case is 99 percent I believe. And the missed service level of agreement is satisfactory explained and the CSC determined that no exceptions were... that these exceptions are no cause for concern. No consistent problems were identified and no further action is needed. Now, I'm going to propose that we are effectively. Can we share the CSC report or is that still being looked for? BYRON HOLLAND: So you want to share the last... JAY DALY: The last CSC report if that's possible. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, okay. JAY DALY: This is a reminder to us. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah. Just a minute. JAY DALY: I think the proposal is that this month, once again, it is satisfactory. It can't be an excellent as 100 percent has not been met. So far we have explanations of why... effectively of the ones that have been missed, what's the... that's there's something in place to handle those. I think. Is everybody comfortable with that being satisfactory for the overall finding? Perhaps we should go through the individual wording here as well to check with anybody who thinks to wording needs adjusting? [AUDIO BREAK] Right. Byron agrees. I'm going to take sign as that everybody else agrees with the satisfactory rating. And I'm also going to take it that we also all agree with the wording there as well. [AUDIO BREAK] Great, for now I'll more onto metrics that the CSC is tracking closely. I do have a couple of points to explain. A couple of minor things have been sent to me on regards of the PTI report but I think we'll deal with those offline rather than go through those now. Cause we've moved on from there. So metrics that CSC is tracking closely? As a reminder to people, we have the possibility that the first one, the manual lodgment time, I believe we've now had that two reports in a row. The question is whether or not we should be tracking that. And the second one is the queuing of pending technical checks, whether or not that should stay as something we are closely tracking until such time as the road map is delivered and that moves into a parallel or not. I'm not saying that we should have to track those now. It's just those are the two you may possibly wish to say we are tracking. Does anybody have any comments on either of those, one way or the other? BYRON HOLLAND: Jay, could you repeat your first one? I got should manual be tracked and the other one. JAY DALY: Of the four exceptions that we have, the last two, the length of time we've already dealt with. Those are fine. The first two, manual lodgment time I believe has appeared previously. Correct me if I'm wrong please Elise. And so the question is whether we should now start to track that. ELISE GERICH: It was in the last report also. However there is a difference from the narrative. What we've done is we've categorized things so that we can track trends like we'd like to. So there are two manual lodgments. One last time. One this time. This time part of problem was, we needed the clarification also from the requester before we could lodge the requests on their behalf. So it was a different circumstance. Even though it's the same category. JAY DALY: Okay, but the question there is, as a minor point, I think rather than writing L.A. time, I think it would be useful to use Pacific Standard Time or whichever the actual time zone is there. Rather than the L.A. colloquialism. ELISE GERICH: Oh, we can fix that. If you'd like we'll use whatever time zone is appropriate. JAY DALY: I think we use the time zone time and that's better for people. So the request for prior clarification, effectively the clock should've stopped at that point then. It sounds as though the clock hasn't stopped. ELISE GERICH: Well that's not the way the SLE was written for this specific category. So we get [INAUDIBLE] the PTI gets dinged, sorry to use that term, if we don't understand what the ticket should have in it. We could obviously consult with you all and on your request, revise the way we calculate this. But we did it the way the SLE was written. [crosstalk] Once we get the request, if we need a clarification before we can lodge it. We have to count that time. JAY DALY: Okay, thank you. Was someone else trying to talk there? No. Elise, I think there is a general rule in the SLE that time is attributed to the party responsible. And I think that general principal should apply throughout. And so, without it needing to be specifically written into any individual item. If you do have to pass the baton over to the requester or something, I think the clock should stop at that point as a general principal. I mean, that's what the SLE principals say. Does anybody else have any other concerns about that at all? Thank you Lars. ELISE GERICH: So Jay, I welcome your comment and what we'll do is we'll look at this one, this measurement, and the way we implemented it and we'll see if there's any implementations that also have interpreted the principal differently than you've just stated it and get back to the CSC and let you know what we've identified. Okay? JAY DALY: Okay, thank you. Elise, I think also we would... it would be useful if the PTI reports, if that particular thing could be recalculated and the reports reissued. If there is a change and that no longer exceeds the SLE's threshold. ELISE GERICH: Right, so I'll look at that and Tim's obviously listening to me and I'm not going to commit anything, so he doesn't hurt me. That's a joke Tim. But right now, everything is done so programmatically. So we would have to go back and look at that ticket and do that manually. But I'm sure we can do it. If that's what you really want. JAY DALY: Well either do it or manually just calculate what the time would've been for that one and include that in the narrative. ELISE GERICH: Okay so we'll take an action to go back and look at this exception and get back to the CSC with an update. JAY DALY: Kal, you suggest that that one should be addressed one way or another. Do you think we should do that now or wait to hear further about the recalculation of that one or any other view. KAL FEHER: No, I think... and I'd read that a little bit earlier before the full explanation of the time taken was given. So if it's... if the recalculation shows that it's under the SLE, then I don't think there's any issue. Or I don't think we need to track it. JAY DALY: Okay and the second point then is, I think Liman's already suggested that on the queuing of pending technical checks, we don't start watching on a first offense. Effectively, we wait for a second one before we start doing anything about that. Does everybody agree with that one? ELISE GERICH: Jay, I like all these suggestions and it would be a real good idea if when the minutes come out, we could get some clarification of exactly what's being asked that might be done differently than we're doing. Cause I don't want to go off and try to spin an activity to reprogram things until we're really clear about what a request is. JAY DALY: Elise, the only request that I know of so far... sorry, the two, are to use time zone names rather than city names. And the second one is to adopt that principal of the clock stopping when we responsibility passes over to the requester or to another third party that's not contracted by PTI to do some work. Those are the only two things so far we've got in there. [crosstalk] What goes into this report? The CSC report. ELISE GERICH: All right. Thank you. I got a little confused there. JAY DALY: Just to make sure that the rest of the committee are clear about this, that means that we will not be saying anything about any of these issues in our report at all. Do we want to address that with some sort of line along the lines of, there are no metrics that are yet being tracked. But there are a number, well effectively saying without mentioning them, there are a number which are due for discussion at some further point or something like that? Lars, you have your hand up. LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: We will have to write something I think. Because we have to explain why we give the assessment satisfactory rather than excellent. So that's the first point. And I think we could mention that there are things but since they're not... help me with the English words here. They're not yet a trend. So we're not through watching them closely. We're not tracking them yet. So they're things that happened once so far. JAY DALY: I think. Yes, I've heard the point is that there are minor issues so far wherein they're part of an ongoing conversation with PTI about the mediation of those in the future. Or something. LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: Yeah. JAY DALY: So Trang or Bart, are you happy with that relatively clumsy explanation as to adding small element in there to say that? BART BOSWINKEL: Yeah. TRANG NGUYEN: I have noted here that in the [INAUDIBLE] section, we would have some language around, there are minor issues with the CSC's discussions with PTI regarding future with possible remediations but there are no consistent issues. JAY DALY: That's lovely language. Thank you very much. Unless anybody objects, I think we can move on from that particular point. Okay, great. So the next part then is service level agreements that the CSC is considerable recommending to be adjusted. So we already have on there the issue with technical checks. Are we happy and comfortable to leave that on there? I'm going to take that as a yes from everybody. I think as a general principal, we should leave it on there until such time as it comes off. And that may mean it gets to a long list if it takes and if there's ever an annual review of this. But at the moment I think it should stay on there. If anybody disagrees, please say. Has anybody identified any other set of level agreements that we believe should be adjusted or that we should consider adjusting? No? Good. So that is part three. Can we just finish that off? Trang, could you just summarize what you'll be saying on that report for us please? TRANG NGUYEN: Sure Jay. So we have an overall finding of satisfactory. And which service level agreements that were satisfactory explained and it's not an indication as a persistent issue with the technical checks and manual lodgments. And then in the metrics that the CSC is tracking closely section, we would have some language around, there are minor issues that the CSC is having discussions with PTI on potential future remediations. But no indications of a persistent issue. And then in the service level agreement section, in the table, we would reflect the technical check [INAUDIBLE] of the month [INAUDIBLE] language that was in the previous CSC report. So we would keep that language in there. And then... JAY DALY: Thank you. TRANG NGUYEN: And then in the report with escalations section, it would reflect the adjustment that we had in the previous report. Which is that today PSI has notified to CSC of zero escalations. JAY DALY: Thank you. Unless I see any hands raised, I'll assume we're all happy with that. Great, so if we can now move onto item four in the agenda? Ria, if you could put the agenda back up please, that'd be great. Unless we have actually the list of action items from the last one. That could go up there. It would be wonderful. But if not, just on to the agenda. Ria OtanesS: I have a consolidated list with Byron and Trang's list. Or I can have the separate ones. Which one would you prefer? JAY DALY: The consolidated list I think? Can we go back to the other lists? I think if we do that one first and then come back to consolidated one... cause they're in such different formats. Apologies everyone. And thank you again Byron for such an extensive set of notes. Ria OtanesS: Is this one okay? Or were you looking for a different list? JAY DALY: No-no, this one's fantastic. Thank you. So A, change text in October report template heading, third column. That I believe has been done. I'm going to go through the ones that are done. If anybody thinks they haven't been done, please tell me. B, include notes in report that's narrative around change language. I believe that's also been done. Then C, rename the section on SLA table. That's also been done. And then D, accept or disprove of proposed reports. That's been done. Elaine did that by email. E, sorry Elaine, you have your hand up? ELAINE PRUIS: Thanks. I just wanted to apologize for not making that meeting. I literally unplugged for the Thanksgiving weekend and when we had a meeting on Monday, I hadn't even checked my emails. So apologies and thanks to Maria for trying to get ahold of me after I missed that. And I'm glad I was able to get the report on time. JAY DALY: Thank you Elaine. E, draft recovery notes and send out notes and report. That's done. Thank you Byron. That was a very comprehensive note that went out. Back to the group, in the week on boilerplate or international procedure CSC and introduce person. Bart I believe that's down to you. Can you tell us where we are on that please? BART BOSWINKEL: It's as to the percent, there has been a slight shift and it's going to be me and I'm working on your boilerplate. JAY DALY: Okay, and do we have a time for when that boilerplate... the first draft of that would be ready at all? BART BOSWINKEL: The boiler should be ready I think early next week. So by Tuesday you should have it in your inbox. JAY DALY: Right, okay. Great. And I'm going to assume that's on PST time, rather than any other time? BART BOSWINKEL: Going to be CAT. Using your mechanism it will be CAT. JAY DALY: That's just useful for us with Tuesdays and things but that's a Wednesday for me probably. Next point then, moving on to G, follow up with product group to implement suggested changes to the website. Trang, can you update us on that one? TRANG NGUYEN: Sure Jay. The changes have been made and website is now deployed. So if you go to icann.org/csc, you should see the page with the new content. As we have proposed. JAY DALY: Fantastic. Thank you very much. H, share additional document with group on review of by-laws that are associated with CSC. Now that's been done. Byron has sent that to us. So there are two points that Byron raised in that and asked for feedback on that as being the highest priority. Getting a handle on existing complaints and understanding where the PTI customer survey stands. I believe I was a goody two shoes and replied in agreement with Byron on that. And I'm going to propose that they go onto the agenda for the next item for the next meeting for us to discuss there as action items. Does anybody have any concerns about that? ELISE GERICH: This is Elise raising her hand. I don't have a concern about having that as an agenda item but I did want to let the CSC know that we have just completed the annual customer satisfaction survey. The report will be available by the end of this month, December. At which point, I will send a note to the CSC and distribute it to you all. That's for the last year. And typically, just for your information, our customer satisfaction survey time-frame has been to run from September 1st through August. The end of the month of August. So like I said we just finished the report from the professional third-party survey company that we've worked with. And we'll be sharing the report for the last year with you guys before the New Year. JAY DALY: In that case, I think we can add onto the agenda for the next meeting, discussing that report to see whether there are any implications for the CSC in there. I take that as an agree from Byron? Thank you. Anyone else have any other views some way or another on that? And Elise, I presume you'd be happy with that conversation? ELISE GERICH: Absolutely. Because I think it shows that the community over all has been quite pleased with us and the performance of our jobs. JAY DALY: Right, thank you. And the other point was about complaints. Now I believe that you were going to come back with some figures or other data about complaints at some point? Would that be available at the next meeting for us to discuss? ELISE GERICH: I don't know that I agree to that. I think that was a suggestion. But one of the things I was hoping was the customer satisfaction survey report would show the satisfaction. And the fact that, I think that we have 96 percent satisfaction. And we have anecdotal comments that we can share, that were added in the preform section. And we actually would like some help from the CSC on how to get country code, top level domain managers to respond. We've had zero response from them on this survey, as well as the previous ones. So I think it's really a conversation about how to get more input from the ccTLDs. And we could use your help on that. JAY DALY: Thank you. Now the actual complaint is a separate issue though. This is in order for us to understand what priority we put into any form of escalation work. So that we need to understand whether PTI is receiving complaints, what the nature of those complaints are, and how they impact on us. Are they effectively complaints about performance? Because obviously we're not interested in certain types of complaints or [INAUDIBLE] perhaps out of scope for us. This isn't us looking for issues or problems with PTI. It's simply us needing the data in order for us to plan that element of work that required to do. ELISE GERICH: We're happy to talk about the escalation process and how, when things can't be resolved in a normal day the day operational fashion, that there is an escalation process and present that to you and get your feedback. And see if there are suggestions on how to improve upon the process. [crosstalk] JAY DALY: I think the thing that... sorry, carry on. Who is that? TRANG NGUYEN: Jay, sorry it's Trang. The [INAUDIBLE] function contract does document a complaint process and an escalation process which defines [INAUDIBLE] where the CSC would have over all. \ So I think it would be useful to walk through that. Just to make sure the CSC understands the role that it's supposed to play within that process. Additionally, the CWG proposal as well as [INAUDIBLE] function contract also reference a remedial action procedures that will need to be defined between the CSC and [INAUDIBLE]. So that's the other piece of work that's [INAUDIBLE] in the combined document that we are showing earlier today. Or just a few minutes ago. JAY DALY: Thank you. That's very useful. Just the reiterate though, the missing piece to this is some degree of quantification of the number of complaints and nature of complaints for us to understand how we prioritize this work. An escalation process could be a substantial piece of work and if there are very few complaints or none at all, then this is something we really don't need to put high up on our agenda. So is there any form of quantification that can be provided to us? ELISE GERICH: We do have a process in-house where we quantify feedback which include complaints and compliments. And over the last three months, we've not had any complaints registered in this process. And these are complaints where somebody said something in an email about well, I don't know... They were unhappy with the way we said something in an email or something like that. That would be a complaint. And we usually address those and correct them. But we have have none of those in our feedback queue in the last three months. No complaints. We do have compliments however. I'm happy to share those also. JAY DALY: So I think if we, when we follow the escalation process, follow Trang's suggestion, for next meeting. And if we could just raise that again Elise, just so that we can then... [INAUDIBLE] then that would be a zero presumably. Then that would help us understand the prioritization. Okay I intend to move on from H here, unless anybody else has anything else they wish to mention. Okay so, I, is add the CCG to the list and receive the CSC reports. Bart has that been done? BART BOSWINKEL: They received the report. They were copy in. JAY DALY: Thank you. And the next bit is schedule calls at agreed times. Ria, can you update us on January meeting and what you've been doing on that please? RIA OTANES: Yes, January 15th actually falls on a Sunday. And the 16th is a U.S. holiday. Should we move the next call to the 16th or Tuesday the 17th? JAY DALY: I think we are going to have to talk to terms of UTC or something equivalent for us to all be able to understand this. RIA OTANES: The time is still at 2000UTC. So it was agreed that the... if we moved it to January 16th, at 2000UTC or if we're moving to January 17 at 2000UTC. Because January 15th 2000UTC is a Sunday. JAY DALY: And 16th is a U.S. holiday. RIA OTANES: Yes. JAY DALY: So I don't know if it's possible for everybody to check their diaries now and say whether they have an issue or if they would like a Google poll sent out just for those two days to double check? RIA OTANES: I'd be happy to send a Google poll if that's easier. JAY DALY: No, I think we're okay on this so far. The 17th right, okay, so everybody's... Either is fine for Byron. But he has a preference. But he said either is fine. If we work on the 17th then? RIA OTANES: I will update the calendar. JAY DALY: I may have... Bart's traveling. Well, in that case... sorry Ria, if you could send out a brief poll just for those two days? RIA OTANES: Yes, of course. I'll send it right after the call. JAY DALY: Just so we can just get that. That's useful. I'm just waiting, sorry. For the people who are typing, if you have anything else to say on this one. No? Moving on then. I don't intend to go through [INAUDIBLE] the list. I'm just going to move onto... Lars asked if we can look at the following call too... the January one. Yes, certainly. Ria would you be able to look at that one as well? Propose something? [INAUDIBLE] otherwise it's off to Google poll as well. For the January meeting. RIA OTANES: The January or the February meeting? LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: This is Liman. I was thinking about the February meeting and I haven't checked my schedules. I don't know if it falls on a strange day. RIA OTANES: No it's on a Wednesday. LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: It's on a Wednesday all right. So no weird... there's no need to discuss it then. Sorry. I'll withdraw my comment. Thank you. JAY DALY: Fantastic. So just finishing up, briefly then, moving on to any other business. Does anybody have any other business that they would like to he raise at all? ELISE GERICH: Hi Jay, this is Elise. I have to say two short things. One, I wanted to thank everyone for accommodating moving this meeting to the 14th Pacific Time at noon. And I appreciated that. But the other piece of any other visit is a little more [INAUDIBLE] and that is that, in the charter, it does indicate that PTI should have a primary and a secondary point of contact for communications. And Ella [INAUDIBLE] will be the secondary. I will continue to be the primary. So I just wanted that to go on record that Ella will be joining us on the CSC as my secondary point of contact. JAY DALY: I'm sorry, I didn't properly hear the name. ELISE GERICH: It's N-A-E-L-A, Naela. [crosstalk] JAY DALY: And what's her role within PTI? ELISE GERICH: Naela is the manager of the team that handles all requests. For TLD change requests. And she manages the four INS specialists that do that role. JAY DALY: Great. Okay, and will Naela be joining us on these calls regularly? ELISE GERICH: Yes she will. JAY DALY: Thank you for that. Does anyone else have anything to ask or raise about that at all? Liman, you still have a hand up. I presume it's old. LARS-JOHAN LIMAN: It is old. Sorry. JAY DALY: That's okay. Does anybody have any other business? BART BOSWINKEL: Yes, this is Bart, Jay. And this is more for consideration. As we say, go into the holiday season, do you, might be useful to already think about whether you want a face to face meeting in Copenhagen. Because that will kick off shortly and about using the Copenhagen meeting to meet with community and community members as CSC. Because that's one of the roles you have as well. Just to raise it and to bring it to your attention at this stage already. JAY DALY: I'm going to jump in to suggest here. Which is that, in Copenhagen, as Elaine says, we have a face to face, an open one as it would be. And the second part of it should be or the first part of it should be to introduce us to the community. So perhaps [INAUDIBLE] that we around so that we have [INAUDIBLE] at the beginning explaining to anybody who comes what it's all about. And then we have the open meeting following that. Or something similar in one go. Several people are typing. So we'll just wait for their comments to come through. All right. They're all agreeing. The earlier substantive point I've made is that we do it all in one go rather than having two separate meetings. So we should work on that basis then. Can I leave it to Bart, I think it is, to try to negotiate a room and time slot for us, for that? BART BOSWINKEL: Yep. JAY DALY: Great. Thank you Bart. That's very good of you. I see Byron's still finishing typing. Specific presentation to SOs and ACs. So yes, how about Bart, we ask also, and Byron correct me if this is wrong, whether or not Byron and I, and any other people who are interested and have five or ten minutes on the agenda of each of the SOs and ACs, the GAC and the board, and the GNSO. Bart would you be able to raise that as well? BART BOSWINKEL: I will suggest it and get back to my colleagues for the different SOs and AC. And see what they can organize. [crosstalk] The only one I definitely can do is reschedule for that one. But the agendas of the other SOs and ACs are controlled mostly by their own program groups. So I'll get back to my colleagues and inform them about your request. JAY DALY: Okay thank you and I'm going to just [INAUDIBLE] now and suggest that it's GNSO, GAC and board that you're interested in for the moment. If anybody thinks that we ought to go to ALAC as well, please suggest. But I don't think you necessarily need to do SSAC or RSAC or any of the other ACs at all. Great, well we'll take that then so just those ones to start off with. Bart, unless you hear differently from Byron with a better suggestion, cause really a chairs call I think with that one there. But do we have any other business at all? No, great. We've already sorted out the date and time of the next meeting. There'll be a poll about that. So unless I hear anything else, two people are typing, but other than that, I'm just about to close the meeting. If... no, all done. Good. So thank you very much. That's the meeting over. ELISE GERICH: Thank you Jay. BART BOSWINKEL: Thank you. Bye-bye. [END OF TRANSCRIPTION] Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 5 EN Page PAGE 37 of NUMPAGES 37 Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 5 EN Note: The following is the output resulting from transcribing an audio file into a word/text document. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages and grammatical corrections. It is posted as an aid to the original audio file, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. ) 1 – — u ƒ á ë " 6 7 G K e g „ ‡ Æ Ç " " «" ´" Ì" Õ" ø% ü% Ë4 ×4 [: b: ; ; l= t= …@ @ óA üA  C ©C ×C ØC D 'D VD _D ›Q ¢Q cR lR „S ‹S ÚX æX ƒ[ ‹[ ·\ ¿\ ½^ Æ^ ÷b c d ™d pe xe ÿi j Bk Jk “k ›k ÷î÷å÷å÷å÷Ü÷Ó÷Ó÷Ü÷Ó÷Ó÷Ó÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷À÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷À÷À÷Ê÷Ê÷Ê÷ÊhËX¼ hHS ;^J hËX¼ h3# ^J hËX¼ hµà ^J hËX¼ h·! ^J hËX¼ h: g ^J hËX¼ hß*B ^J hËX¼ hHS ^J L Y Z u v « # — ™ Ø Ù ì í - . c d ¤ ¥ ¸ ¹ Ù ô õ ‹ Œ ( ) ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê $„@„Àôdh ¤ð ^„@`„Àôa$gdHS ) # $ ð ñ 0 1 ¦ § 1 3 ° ± ô õ „ È V ` a œ  Ö × ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê $„@„Àôdh ¤ð ^„@`„Àôa$gdHS × S T © y ¾ P Q O! P! ¨$ %&