ÐÏࡱá > þÿ º ¼ þÿÿÿ ¸ ¹ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á ï 𿠜ê bjbj>> 1* qT qT -à n ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ · Z Z ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ÿÿÿÿ Ò Ò Ò 8 Œ – t Ò Î ( 2 2 2 # / ƒ … … … … … … $ Ò ¶ ˆ# : © ¾ 7 7 7 © ¾ ¾ 2 2 Û ¾ 7 ¾ 2 ¾ 2 ƒ 7 ƒ ÿÿÿÿ PoE‰ŒÒ ÿÿÿÿ ? . o Ô 0 Â# m š Â# ¾ h 7 7 7 © © 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ Â# 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Z * „ : BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, not sure what happened, I could hear everybody clearly there, but obviously you could not hear me. Who do we have on the call? UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Elise Gerich is here. BART BOSWINKEL: Byron, we've got all the members present. So that’s one and I think Lars -- yeah, James and Elise, and Elise and Jay. I believe all the liaisons are present as well. Did I miss anybody? And we haven't received anybody, and then from staff you've got Ria, Kim, Trang and me, Bart Boswinkel. So, over to you, you've got a full house. BYRON HOLLAND: All right, thank you very much, Bart. Thank you everybody for joining today. Welcome to all the members and liaisons. As seems to continually be the case, we have a very full dance card today. And in order to get through the most, I think the most important agenda items, it may be required that we push one or two back, but we'll see how we fare along the way. Everybody has the agenda in front of them? The agenda is up. Are there any unanswered questions on the agenda itself? Or additions? I know there was some email traffic over the last little while, both Cal and Jay had agreed with Elaine that PTI present a bit of a high level roadmap for the development strategy for 2017, we could add that in that in just before other business, if that's okay with people? Unless I hear something to the contrary, we'll squeeze that in just before any other business. ELISE LINDEBERG: So, Jay, I'd just like to confirm that everyone received the short documents that I sent to the CSC with that high level overview? Because if you don't have it, it may be premature, I sent it last week. BYRON HOLLAND: I think it went out to the whole CSC. So certainly, everybody had access to it. ELISE LINDEBERG: Okay, good, thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Then I'm just going to suggest a overview and walk through, not a detailed discussion, to get people familiar with it. ELISE LINDEBERG: Okay, I appreciate that. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, so then, let's carry on with agenda item number two, which is any feedback that we've had on the last report, the December report. Just wondering if anybody has had any meaningful feedback one way or the other; positive, negative, either on the content or the distribution list. Those who are receiving it, who aren't yet and would like to, if there's feedback that we've had, as members or liaisons? No, I don't see anybody's hand up, and nobody jumping in. If anybody recalls something during the balance of this call, we can certainly take comments at the end, if you do recall something of importance for us. I just noticed that Elise from the GAC said there was some comments from GAC members. She's going to send them to us on the CSC list, tomorrow. Thanks for that, Elise. So with that, let's move on to agenda item number three and that's the review of the performance report for January. And Elise, if I could ask you just to provide us a brief overview and any comments that you would like to make about the report? ELISE GERICH: Thank you, Byron. So, I hope everyone has had a chance to look at the report. Basically the high level overview is that the percentage of SLA thresholds that we met, based on most of times was 97.3% overall. We did have two exceptions. One was in the category of manual lodgment time, and the other was in the technical check supplemental category. And basically the manual lodgment time was one where we had sent out a mass mailing prior to the holiday season, to ask people to review their current data. And one of the customers replied with a response and said that they would be following up and they would like to make changes for their TLD. So, we created a ticket for the email, saying that they'd like to make changes, and then we waited for them to get back with us for the changes. And based on the way the SLA has been defined, we kept waiting and that time counted against us. And I know previously on the CSC, there has been a suggestion that maybe we, being the CSC, would look at the definitions of some of the SLAs because this one does include waiting time, and that's why the time exceeded the SLA. I'll stop and ask if there's questions or comments on that. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, Elise. I see Jay, you have your hand up? Please, go ahead. JAY DALY: Yeah, when we discussed this previously, sorry I came away with a different impression, that this wasn't a definition error, this was an implementation issue. It would be really useful if we could see the chapter and verse about that definition to understand that specific bit, just to remind you that there's a principle at the front, which is that the time taken by each party should be correctly allocated to that party. And so that principle, being set out at the front, shouldn't have enabled the definition to be wrong on this way. Or sorry, should have prevented the definition from being done in practice. But it would be really useful to check that? So if I could, as one of the primary authors of those, it would be really useful to me if I could just see the chapter and verse of where that went wrong? Sorry, was that lengthy enough for you? ELISE GERICH: We'll definitely look into that, Jay. And I asked Kim to be on the call today because we're gonna also talk about the high level roadmap, but Kim, I know was active in the design team and discussing these. So, I don't know, Kim, if you want to add anything to this topic? I see you're in the chat room, I don't know if you're on the phone. KIM DAIVIES: Yeah, I'm here. My take on this is pretty much in concurrence which what was just being said. It was not the intention to have time not attributable to IANA here in these statistics, but I think this is probably the result of some last minute wording changes that were put in just before the document was finalized and the implications of which were not fully thought through. We've subsequently implemented the letter, what we believe is the letter of the SLE definitions, but obviously we've identified an area where future tweaking might be necessary for our stats collection and our operational practices, to make sure that customer time is not attributable to staff time. So, that's my take. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, Kim. And I certainly, my recollection is consistent with what Jay's articulated. So Jay, your hand is -- oh, it just went down. So, in terms of -- and I just pick up on the word 'tweaking' -- it’s certainly consistent with what I understood came out of the design time, and that time as a result of waiting for feedback from customers should not count against IANA. What is gonna be required to tweak the environment so that effectively IANA is not penalized for time that is not a result of their action or inaction. ELISE GERICH: Great, and I hopefully we'll have a chance to have a dedicated discussion about the various requests for changes in our implementation, because we want to make sure we understand exactly what's being requested so we get it right. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, well, I think the basic one there is you shouldn't be accountable for time spent by external party, third party or customers. ELISE GERICH: Well, that's good to know, so unfortunately we counted that external time in this implementation and so therefore we exceeded the SLA, based on the way we measure. And we will look into how to fix that. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, so can provide us then a status update by next month on how you see that unfolding? Any kind of timeline and duration associated with that? ELISE GERICH: I'd like to first have a conversation where we could talk about the list? 'Cause I think we have at least four or five different requests for changes in implementation. So that we can make sure we understand all of them and we can schedule them all, instead of trying to make changes at a piecemeal fashion that might then have collateral damage to something else. If you see what I'm trying to say. BYRON HOLLAND: Sure. ELISE GERICH: Maybe between meetings or in Copenhagen have a face to face to go over the requests that we have on our plate. So that we can talk through exactly what they mean. We'd appreciate that. BYRON HOLLAND: Sure, and that's probably a fair point for an agenda item for Copenhagen. So, now we can take that as an action item, to make sure that we have the list about standing suggestions or remediations as part of the package, heading into the Copenhagen meeting so you can get the clarity that you need and we feel is appropriate. Okay? That work for you? ELISE GERICH: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that, that would be great to have that on the agenda, 'cause I'll have all the right people in the room that day. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, and just a reminder from Jay about getting the reference specs in the SLA that essentially caused this. That would be helpful. ELISE GERICH: Correct, it may be that I have misinterpreted what we wrote, but I look for that. I think my team probably thinks that it's an implementation issue that maybe it's not the text, that I've misread the exception, but I will look for it, Jay. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, I know our goal way back was to not saddle you with the delays caused by others. Let's report accordingly. Any other questions or comments on that one? Okay, seeing none, maybe we'll carry on. ELISE GERICH: Okay, then, for the technical check supplemental, we also exceeded that SLA. And in this case, as the description says, we looked at the debug logs and basically we saw that there were retry times and time outs and multiple retries and so that caused this to run longer than it would normally take. And we added the word previously as the CSC recommended, the CSC has previously recommended that the technical check threshold for this and other categories be revisited. So, this is one of those technical checks that we've discussed in previous CSC meetings, with the time outs and waiting time out and multiple retries exceed the one minute SLA. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, so do you see this? It's something to add to the list or something separate and distinct? ELISE GERICH: Which list? The list of things we should look at our implementation? Or the list to change the time? BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, the list -- I guess the implementation versus the SLE, because of course, changing the SLEs is not the remit of this group. It's the remit of GNSO and ccNSO. I mean, we can certainly make a recommendation to them to entertain the thought, but it's not our remit, per se, to be making those changes. ELISE GERICH: Right, so I think if we could add this request for changes to our list of things to discuss at Copenhagen, for the things that we've identified as either the threshold is not being met. BYRON HOLLAND: Let's add it to that list, because it probably is some qualitative discussion about is this IANA's challenge that in a sense not receiving and waiting? Or is it an SLE that really needs to be changed? Kal, you have your hand up, go ahead. KAL FEHER: Hi, yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, clarify what we're looking and what we might choose to do about it. My understanding, and Elise please correct me if I'm wrong. If there had been a lot more technical checks scheduled to happen, perhaps immediately after the offending technical check, this particular SLE would have been significantly worse. So, the way those technical checks are currently scheduled, they're effectively serial parallel is a feature or an adaption that we might need to address. And then separate to that, I think we were generally wanting any one check to I believe we were going to recommend something in minutes, or something like that. So, there is the recommendation element of our discussions that we'll probably have in Copenhagen, and then there is the functional side of the check, that no matter what SLE we ultimately convince people we have an agreement on, we still have to have that functionality so that each one check is not somehow harmed by the preceding check. ELISE GERICH: You're absolutely correct. That was an implementation issue we identified previously that wasn't cause of this issue. This one, when we looked at the logs, it looked like it was exceeding it, not just because of potential queuing, but because of the waiting and time out. And so I do think that's why we'd really like to have that kind of concentrated discussion about some of the issues we're seeing the implementation and what you'd really like to see us do and how we might do it. So, instead of delivering a blue box when you wanted a red box, we're delivering a blue box. Wait, I said that backwards, we want to give you the colored box you want. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. ELISE GERICH: So those were the two exceptions. And all the other SLAs were achieved, as you can see by the report. BYRON HOLLAND: All right, thank you very much. We can add, what we've just spoken of to our discussion in Copenhagen, if there is some discussion yet to be had on this particular item. So, if we could add that to the register of outstanding issues for focused conversation on possible changes or SLE changes, implementation changes or SLE changes. Any other comments on the January report itself? Okay, thank you very much, thank you Elise and team. And could I ask Trang and or Bart to as we have in the past produced the actual CSC report for the month, the draft version of it, please? TRANG NGUYEN: Hi, Byron, this is Trang. My question is, what would the CSC like to reflect as the overall finding for the report? Last month it was satisfactory at 99 point something SLA met. This month it's at 97.3% with a couple of exceptions that Elise had noted, so how would you like the CSC report to be reflected? BYRON HOLLAND: I think it would be very, very similar, in that it is satisfactory. Note the actual numerical values that it is satisfactory, highlight the two outstanding issues. And if any of my colleagues have any other specific suggestions, but essentially what I would like to get to, and I think what we would like to get to, is that the report that we produce as the CSC is very consistent month over month. So that the people receiving it don't have to spend any cycles or efforts on trying to understand the report, they know exactly how it's going to work and what's in it. So, I would want to see it follow a very, very similar template but with the numerical values specific to the month, rating specific to the month and any of the exception items with discussion. TRANG NGUYEN: Got it. And I will make those updates and circulate it after the call. BYRON HOLLAND: Great, thank you very much. And I note that Jay and Kal have chimed in with the general agreement, thank you. Okay then, any other comments or questions on agenda item number three? TRANG NGUYEN: Byron, this is Trang, I have a -- BYRON HOLLAND: Go ahead. TRANG NGUYEN: I have a follow up question, if you wouldn't mind, on the CSC report. Up until now, the general practice that we take is that the CSC would review the PTI report on the monthly call, have a discussion about it, and then I would draft the CSC report based on the discussion and circulate it after the call. Would you like to continue that practice, or would you prefer to see us draft a CSC report, based on the PTI report that Elise and her team circulate on the 12th of each month, and have both the PTI and CSC report ready for the CSC to review on its monthly call? BYRON HOLLAND: I think it's probably worth having the draft obviously until we've had the conversation. There's potential that it could be premature but certainly based on what we've seen thus far, that's not an unreasonable suggestion. But just recognizing the fact that the conversation may take us in some other direction, but I think for next, let's go with that suggestion for next month, unless there's an objection? The worst thing that can happen is you do that bit of work and we head a different direction. TRANG NGUYEN: Exactly. But as you mentioned, these reports don't change much from month to month, so I think if I can draft it before the monthly call, based upon the previous month's draft and then you can review both on the call and if we have any changes that are needed, I can certainly make those changes after the call. BYRON HOLLAND: That's a very good idea, thanks for the suggestion, Trang. TRANG NGUYEN: Thank you, I'll do that next month. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, with that, let's move on to agenda item number four, which is essentially an update on the action registry or action items from our last meeting. We can hopefully go down pretty quickly through the list, we've highlighted, or it has been highlighted, the status of each of the action items. I'll tell you what, if it's completed I'm not gonna stop on it, unless somebody wants to flag it or raise an issue, just for the sake of efficiency here. So the first one we had is the second action item on the list, which is 17-02 and Elise I think you were gonna check on the average times in the narrative report, on whether to include the average times? Could you just let us know -- ELISE GERICH: So this is, again, one of the areas where we had more questions about what was being asked, I think it was Liman that had come up with a suggestion on how we could look at the average time, if technical checks were queued for each technical check to run. And when I went back to the team with that, there were more questions than I could answer, so this is one of the topics we'd like to add to that conversation in Copenhagen. I'm sure we can figure out what needs to be done, as long as we understand exactly what's being asked. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, thanks for the update. I see Liman is -- ELISE GERICH: The next one is also mine. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, go ahead. ELISE GERICH: Again, this was one we had promised for the February or March meeting. We have sent a high level roadmap, but the detailed request that we’ve received from you we would clearly like to have that conversation, so that we can then scope the right thing and prioritize things appropriately. I think we have at least five requests for changes, and so we'd like to understand them exactly and then prioritize them. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, so basically, we want to pump that to the face to face meeting, then, and sort of add it to that list of implementation clarification slash action items for SLE adjustments list. ELISE GERICH: Right, and prioritization of changes. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. And then that means you're gonna have to remember for Copenhagen what you're talking about. Maybe I'll just let, before you go on, Elise, I'll let Jay jump in here. Go ahead, Jay. JAY DALY: Thank you, I'm just wondering if it would be helpful for any of us, who are interested in this high level plan and more details behind it, to suggest the type of things that we would be interested to see, behind it so that Elise would have some idea about that? BYRON HOLLAND: Jay, you know what? Could you speak up a little bit? JAY DALY: Yeah, sorry. Can you hear me better now? BYRON HOLLAND: Yes, carry on please. Can I ask you just to restate what you said, 'cause you were very muted, previously. JAY DALY: Right, I'm just wondering whether it would be useful for me and anybody else who is particularly in this technical roadmap to give an idea to Elise of the kind of things that we would like to see within it? To add, I don't know whether that would be helpful or not? BYRON HOLLAND: Jay, just for my clarification, you mean in the roadmap itself? JAY DALY: Yes, I do, yes. Not saying I want to see this particular functionality here, but say I would like to see detailed at this level, or I would like to know what is happening with this particular thing. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, I think we can entertain that, I'm always just sensitive to making sure that we don't overplay our hand in our oversight role. And dip our fingers too deeply, right? Noses in, fingers out on this? So, I think that it's appropriate that we understand it to the level that gives us confidence, gives you confidence, but I just want to also make sure we respect the oversight role that we have versus the operational role that staff has. And that can always be a delicate balance, and I'm sure once in a while each other drifts over the line and that's the nature of oversight, but I would just like to put that proviso in there. So we can understand the level of detail that you need to make sure that you're confident, but without getting too deep into the operational component, or the execution component of staff. JAY DALY: Sure thing, Byron. If this is sensitive, then I don't to provide that, it is really an offer in case from Elise's point of view that you were not sure what level of detail would be appropriate that we would want to see, or be useful for us to see. But it was only a suggestion, we don't have to follow up. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, and what I just wanted to say, I think there is an appropriate level and I would have to assume that given the level of expertise around the virtual table here that Elise and team would appreciate the right level of feedback and input. So maybe Elise, I'll give you the floor to respond on that. ELISE GERICH: I think you stated it very nicely, that we definitely would appreciate feedback but at the right level, and so I guess when we go over the high level roadmap if it's too fuzzy, or too out in the clouds, we certainly appreciate knowing that, but we clearly appreciate the separation between the oversight role and the operational role also. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. And we are going to come to that more specifically later agenda item number ten, as I recall. So, let's park this particular discussion and come to it there. And then we can actually have a little more discussion about what we have in front of us, versus maybe slightly more detailed level that Jay's talking about. So, we will park that for now and come back to it. So, with that, let's keep moving. Since we're only halfway through -- ELISE GERICH: Four, which is me. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, let's keep moving. ELISE GERICH: And this one I thought it was part of the one above, but I don't really know the action item was a little unclear to me. A better way to perform the checks and I didn't know tests we were referring to, 'cause we test a couple. But anyway, we could clarify that, I guess, when we have our face to face and talk about all the different things on the list, or maybe eliminate this one and it's subsumed by the first two. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. Let's carry on. Action item 16-05. Elise, still you. ELISE GERICH: That's completed. BYRON HOLLAND: It is completed, okay. ELISE GERICH: Yes. As you just saw in the current report we say previously. BYRON HOLLAND: Right, thank you. 17-06 is completed. 16-07 completed. An action item repository or library? That's ongoing. Thank you. 17-09 internal procedures has been circulated or initial draft we'll get to that. And 17-10 initial discussion around the actual survey itself. Yeah, which we have another agenda item for, so we'll get to that, although that one we may given the timing, we may push that one. And quite frankly, the issue there for me at this point is how can we help? How can we make sure we get the kind of participation that PTI and I think everybody would like to get? So, moving on 17-11 which is discussion around complaint and remediation. Like to defer that to the face to face meeting. Jay? I see your hand is up, go ahead. JAY DALY: Yeah, sorry, going back to item 8 the first outline was due to be presented at today's meeting. Are we skipping that this meeting? TRANG NGUYEN: We're currently trying to put it on our wiki space, that's not up yet. So, that will have to wait until the next meeting. BYRON HOLLAND: Sorry, yeah, I went by that one a little fast, but we're not there yet. That okay, Jay? Okay. Moving right along, action item 17-12, Bart and Alan actually have presented or created a basic first draft of a presentation for the public meetings in Copenhagen. And we will be coming to that in more detail at a later agenda item. So, we'll keep moving and we'll come to that in more detail later. And 17-13 Ria circulated a draft as part of this package, of calendar of meetings going forward. So, that we actually have a more fulsome agenda item coming up as well. In fact the next agenda item. So maybe I'll take a moment just to say are there any final comments on the action items, otherwise we will dive right into agenda item number five, which is the calendar itself. So, you see the calendar, and thank you for taking this on, Ria, I think this would be very helpful in making sure that we get as many people as possible on these calls. Help quorum and try to avoid as many major holidays or conflicts as possible, given we come from all over the place. So, if we just go through it, I think it will be helpful, but maybe just to get started, Ria, was there anything that you wanted to share with us before I dive right into the longer term meeting schedule itself? RIA OTANES: No, I didn't receive any feedback for the calendar for 2017. Everything highlighted is some notes that I put that I noticed for holidays or if the PTI report is submitted on a Friday and the call is scheduled for Monday. So, I put my notes highlighted in yellow. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah, thanks very much. Well, maybe I'll just make a comment for the March face to face. The proposal for the PTI report is to be available Friday March 10th, of course a lot of people will be in transit in and around that time. And I just want to make sure that given most people have built presentations or their thinking, or in their mind will have what they're gonna say to our various constituency groups etcetera. So, I just want to make sure that Elise, if there's anything in that PTI report that's giving you pause for thought or concern, that if you could even just flag it to us before the 10th, before people actually hit the road. That I think would be very helpful, just to give us peace of mind, that when we're all arriving at the ICANN meeting, which is in fact going to be consistent of what the report itself says. ELISE GERICH: I will definitely try to do that, just to let you all know that I will also be on the road on like the 8th and 9th. So, I will be arriving on the 10th. So we'll be getting this to you as fast and if there is anything out of the ordinary I'll do my best to make sure you have it in plenty of time. BYRON HOLLAND: Great, thank you. Moving into April, Ria's flagged the fact that Easter weekend is sort of right over the period Easter Monday is on the day we would usually meet. I'm open to moving it, but I cannot do it until later on the 19th, I could do it the afternoon of the 19th, I personally can't do it on the 18th. I'm certainly willing to do it on the 17th, I don't particularly have any objection to that, but I can recognize that perhaps many people would rather push it a day or two. So, right now it is on Monday April 17th, Easter Monday, would people like to move it to the 19th? Or retaining the Easter Monday 17th date, is that fine? And I do note that Jay has rightly noted that that's the 18th for him, so this is a bit of a moot issue. Although he may be the only one where that's the case, I'm not sure. Let me, given we're doing it this way, let me frame it in the negative. Are there any objections to holding it on April 19th between 20-21:30 UTC? Would there be any objections to that? That would be the afternoon in North America, afternoon-ish, evening-ish in Europe and Africa. Late in the evening at points further east. Is there any objection? I'm suggesting a 90 minute meeting: UTC 20 to 21:30. So, I'm not seeing any objections to that, or hearing any objections to that. Okay, so hearing none, let's do that. We will adjust the schedule from April 17th to April 19th, UTC 20 to 21:30. Thanks. Okay. The next thing I just want to pick up on a quick question around the June ICANN meeting in Jo'burg. In particular for the members who is expecting to be physically there in Johannesburg. I know I am, but I just want to get a sense of, Jay, you're in. James you'll be there, thank you. Kal, unlikely to be there, Liman will be there, Elise, okay. Elaine a 30% chance. Okay. Elaine and Kal will you be able to join us on the phone or virtually? Who knows what time of day that will be, but, okay. Okay, so we will be able to make quorum no matter what we determine about quorum. Thank you. And there are some other notes along the way that I think we all just to recognize, the final one that I just want to pull up, is well, there's two, one in August, again, just because of when the weekend falls, can we push this CSC call a day or two later? So given how far out that is, I'm just gonna ask that perhaps Ria, you could put out a doodle poll to see if that will work. RIA OTANES: Okay. BYRON HOLLAND: So we don't have to answer here. And maybe just quickly I can ask for the November meeting in Abu Dhabi and this one I can't get the slide to move up, but November 12th falls on a Sunday, as you can see here. It's appears to me a material holiday in parts of Europe. I will admit I'm unfamiliar with that, but is there anybody that that would be a particular problem with, or can we just carry on as scheduled? Any issues with that? Okay, I see or hear none, so we'll leave it as is. Okay, agenda item number five. Complete. And the one final thing I would ask now that we've got 2017 done, is Ria, it would be great if you could start to push this out into 2018 and get a sense for dates in 2018. I know that's a long way out, but it would be very helpful given the number of people's calendars we have to make sure this fits into. RIA OTANES: Okay, no problem. BYRON HOLLAND: Another action item, thank you very much. So, let's move onto item number six and that's around the terms of the liaisons. I don't have a lot to say on that front, other than as you know some of the terms are two years, some three years in the initial CSC, it's meant to be a bit of a self-selection on this front. I'm just wondering or just wanted to remind you that our liaisons need to self-organize on this front and I might ask Ria to just reach out to them as a group, to get a sense of whose signing up for what in terms of their term length, so we can start to get that sorted out. RIA OTANES: Okay. BYRON HOLLAND: This is really just a reminder for all your liaisons to self-organize on this front. Thank you. So, let's move on to agenda item number seven and that's around the Copenhagen meeting itself, which is rapidly advancing upon us. So, the basics of the schedule of outline below essentially we have meetings with our key constituent groups liaising also with the GAC and the Board. And then of course our own face to face meeting itself. This is the first meeting where, the first ICANN meeting, where we'll really be undertaking specific outreach opportunities with the various constituent groups. As you know, in Hyderabad we had sort of a general open meeting, but this'll be the first one where we will actually be going out into the community and highlighting where we're at, what we've done and what the issues, if any, are. And I think it's important, it is an important part of our mandate the community does need to know what we're up to. So, in addition to our own face to face, we just want to make sure is that we have all of these various constituent group meetings covered. It certainly my hope that although we put a list down here, in terms of suggested lead folks, everybody is welcome, that's not to suggest these are the only people should go to any given meeting. But at a bare minimum these would be the people who are taking the point on those meetings and providing our presentation or answering questions on behalf of the CSC, that's my suggestion. I can participate in them all, from a scheduling perspective, except the one with the GNSO. That's why I made a suggestion here that Elaine and Jay take that one, but it could be Kal as well. So these are my suggestions for who will be the point person on any given meeting, but of course, remind everybody yes, sorry, it should be Elaine and Kal, not Elaine and Jay for the GNSO. RIA OTANES: Sorry about that, I'll fix it. BYRON HOLLAND: Yeah. And I just want to make sure as I was just saying, everybody is welcome, everybody's encouraged to participate in as many as possible. But at the very least we'll need the folks who are listed here. Okay, Kal is just noting that he won't be there till Sunday. Maybe it will be Elaine and Jay. But Elaine you'd obviously be the point person, given the community from which you come. ELAINE PRUIS: That's fine. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. I would suggest and what we're gonna walk through the proposed presentation, draft presentation. I would suggest that most of these, that there's an opportunity to put that presentation up and do a walk through with the various communities. That's what I would intend to do within the ccNSO. So, at the Board level, I think it'll be more of a dialogue, rather than a presentation, because we'll certainly want to get their feedback on how they're viewing us and what we're up to and I'd certainly be interested also from us, as a group, what sort of messages we want to make sure that we deliver to the Board. Now, we don't have to do that now. But at our face to face, that's one of the things that I would like to put on the agenda and to get all of us thinking about is what messages do we want to deliver to the Board itself? And this is a little bit of a tangent from that, but Joran, ICANN’s CEO, has reached out to me as the CSC to get together in some way, shape or form, not determined yet, how or what that will look like, but really just to get a direct drive feedback from the CSC on is ICANN reacting and responding and reporting and handling this issue as we the committee would hope. Are there any gaps, any issues, etcetera? So I would also ask you to think about that, and provide me any feedback or messaging that might be appropriate for that conversation. So, nothing has been scheduled or determined yet. But I'll plant that seed. Okay, with that, I'm going to ask that Bart do a very quick walk through for us on the presentation itself, for the draft presentation, Bart and Alan have put together for us, to see if it covers the kind of ground that we want or that we need it to. Missing anything, too much, etcetera, but given time, I would ask Bart to do a pretty quick -- BART BOSWINKEL: Yeah, very quickly, so it's more, again for those as this is the first time you do outreach, explain a little bit what the CSC is about, so who we are, what you do, how you do your work. And then a little bit looking back since what happens in October 2016, and then go into the functions, so monitoring is as you will see, sorry for getting you seasick a little bit. But I think the core what you do is what we try to capture, is you monitor, you inform the community and you play a role in the consultations and reviews around the CSC itself, the SLEs and around PTI. So that's what we try to capture in the slides. So the first one the core responsibility, what we said was monitoring a little bit of explanation about the SLEs itself, and then this say an explanation of CSC reports and how they should be interpreted by the community. This goes back to one of the comments Elise made it is in the bag, that is on one of the previous calls that say especially the GAC and maybe some others, are not very familiar and they want to understand what the CSC reports are about. So, they can rely on that without going to the detailed ones of the PTI reports. We've included an example when the SPs met, what it means, how it's reflected and also an example of the SLEs not fully met. So, these are just examples so people know what to expect in the CSC reports. Then we go into what is related around the and that's probably one of the big items that the CSC itself need to address together with PTI is around performance and complaints issues. The main one is the CSC and PTI need to agree on the remedial action procedure so there is a little bit more detail and this is from the ICANN bylaws, the IANA functions agreement and from the CSC charter. Again, in the complaint resolution, so there is a difference between the remedial action procedure where there is an explicit role for the CSC and a limited role very limited in this case of complaints. Again, this was by design. Then go into the final one, or the second major function, consulting and informing. And then go into the upcoming work and this is firstly consultations review processing times more on the review transition plan etcetera, request review. So this is more the upcoming work from the CSC itself. And then, the upcoming work which is community led and probably this is very so we included this, and it's probably needs to be stressed especially to the CSC and RISC that they need to start thinking about organizing the charter review, which is due by October of 2017. So, effectively it means they start the conversation this meeting and organize it properly at the Jo'burg meeting in order to kick it off before the Abu Dhabi meeting. And then finally, a summary of the other major points and some message points. That's it. BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you, Bart, that was quite a whirlwind rapid tour of what I know was quite a lot of work, so thank you for both. I've got a couple of comments in the chat, I think probably as I look at it, we have different audiences, and we will have to have slightly different versions of this, to me, this is quite a fulsome version, which would probably be quite appropriate for the ccNSO, a community that I'm certainly most familiar with. And to Elisa from the GAC's comment, I would agree, we probably need a trimmed down version with even a couple of the visual examples of what the report itself looks like. And make it really, really boring for the GAC, so this is not exciting political stuff. Or at least, that's my guess of what she would like. So, I think this is a very good basic fulsome deck, which GNSO and ccNSO may want in its entirety and other constituencies may get a trimmed down, slimmed down, version of it, which we can work on in the lead up to the meeting itself. And certainly Elisa from the GAC your thoughts on what is most salient would be important for us, to make sure we hit the right notes. No, no, I didn't say you were boring, I said we want to be boring! We don't need any political attention, that's for sure. Okay. Any other comments or feedback on this? I know that was a pretty rapid review, so I urge everybody here to give its due and take the time to really go through it, 'cause I think not only is it helpful for all our constituencies, it's always a good baseline for us to just go back and reflect on where we've been, where we're headed and in a sense what is our actual remit. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Bart. I would ask then that if we could have any final or further detailed suggestions or comments, please have them by no later than February 28th. Earlier if possible. And that then Bart could if you and Alan could turn, based on any comments, if you turn around sort of a final draft of this deck by March 3rd. Bart, you hand is up, go ahead. BART BOSWINKEL: Yeah, just one point and I think it's a very valid one, is that say if you look at the chat, Jane suggests to remove the special IFRT even in the most fulsome one. It's a rather principal point, I would say, so I just wanted to draw your attention to it. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Fair enough. Any other comments? Okay, seeing none. Let us carry on to discussion of the customer survey. We had some brief discussion on President’s Day last month. And to say thanks again to Elise and the ICANN team based out of the US. I know it’s a big holiday for you guys so I appreciate that. And hopefully our schedule going forward will mitigate those conflicts. Anyway, as I mentioned right at the beginning of the meeting, it wasn’t as much the survey itself that I was interested in, and I’m open to other feedback and input here. It was more the comments that Elise had made about challenges, getting this out in front of enough people, in front of enough people in specific communities, not the least of which was the CC community, but others as well. And my comment really is if we can get a clear picture on what the cycle of the survey is and how might the CSC get involved. So sort of, how does it work, is the third party doing it for you, what’s the timing, is there a way for the CSC to be a helpful ambassador or advocate for this process to make sure we collectively get as much feedback and input into this survey as possible. In essence, how do we help you CCI in the future? I’d like some discussion about that but also if colleagues, other members or liaisons have further comments I’d certainly like to hear those as well. But that’s how I’m viewing it at this particular point. So while people consider that I’m going to go back over to you Elise, I know you had just jumped in, and get your thoughts. ELISE GERICH: Thanks for your comments and we certain do appreciate the offers of help to get the survey out in front of people and feedback on the survey itself. And I’ve asked Marilia Hirano to join us again on the call today. She’s the person from PTI who leads the engagements with the third-party vendor that runs the survey for us, and she manages the schedule for that and finalizes the final report. So basically, we did get feedback from other parts of the Names community. We had some comments from the (inaudible) folks as well as from people who do routine Root Zone management, gTLD delegation and re-delegation and from the DNSSEC Key Management. So, we segment the reports in that way so that people can self-identify when they put in their pre-formed comments so we know which community is commenting on which thing. But, why don’t I pause and ask if you’d like me to ask Marilia to run through the schedule, which was one thing you brought up, Byron? Or if you would like to open it to other members, we collect the comments and then Marilia and I can respond? BYRON HOLLAND: I’d like to open it to the members and liaisons if we have any comments or questions or feedback at this point. We got the survey last meeting so we have had some time with it. Are there any comments or questions? I’ll just wait for Jay to finish typing. Okay, gave comments previously. So maybe what I could ask then if you could just walk us through, in a sense, the project plan of this, how it works and then are there any obvious points for the CSC to get involved to help shake the bushes and get participation. I’d certainly like to see a lot more from my own community so even just on that front, how and where can we insert ourselves to get a better turnout. ELISE GERICH: Okay, great, well I’d like to introduce Marilia again and ask her to walk through the project plan for the survey. She’s been running this for us, I think this is the second full year and she’ll be starting the new one shortly to get the schedule started. Marilia? MARILIA HIRANO: Hello everyone. Good morning, afternoon, evening. For the IANA Customer Service Survey, we engaged a third-party vendor. We’ve been using iBiquity for the past three years. And the project starts, so, I start getting the contracts signed in June. The survey is run from September until October. There isn’t a set date to send the invites but the plan that I have, and this is going to be the third year, the second week of September is when the invites go out and the survey stays open until the second week of October. So, that’s the rough time frame that we’re looking at. The period is until August 30th. So, we survey people from September 1st to August 30th. The customers who have used our service during that period are invited to participate. So, we then get the results by the third week of October and that’s when I start analyzing it and writing the report which was due to NTIA in the past on December 15th. So, I had that month to go over the report, get all the necessary approvals before it was sent to NTIA. ELISE GERICH: Any other comments from members about the schedule? Thank you, Marilia. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from members or liaisons? No. So, I hadn’t had control of the presentation and now I do. So, I think what might be helpful to Elise is if we had a super lightweight timeline and suggestions where we could get involved and maybe to take the dates we just heard, if we’re working on those dates, you know, two months prior, how do we get involved to, like I say, shake the bushes and get more participation out. So, I’ll put that on you as an action item. If we could just get those very lightest weight timelines so we can see the key milestone points along the way and where we might be able to go to our own communities and ensure we get the participation that we need, which will give us the information that we need to ensure we’re delivering the service at the level that we all want. ELISE GERICH: We’ll be happy to do that, Byron. I’m sure Marilia can put that together rather quickly and we can send it to the mailing list so everyone will have it in front of them. How’s that? BYRON HOLLAND: Great, that will be perfect. Thank you very much. BART BOSWINKEL: May I say, and this is more so I can record the action item as such, that it will be at least one meeting before the Joburg meeting so you use the Joburg meeting to circulate, use the face-to-face time in Joburg to invite everybody to respond. BYRON HOLLAND: Sure, great suggestion, thank you. I’m sure, certainly in this community, Jay and I can use our bully pulpit, such as it is, to increase participation. Jay and I will take that away as our own to do in the CC community. Elise, your hand is up. ELISE GERICH: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to be sure I understood. So, the one suggestion from Bart is something happens in Johannesburg, but the other suggestion, the other action item is that you’d still like to see a schedule from my team so that you all can think about timing and priming the pump, as you said. Or do you only want the Johannesburg one? I’m just trying to understand if there’s two actions or one. BART BOSWINKEL: Elise, the issue is, if you could share the very lightweight schedule that Byron asked prior to or at the latest before Joburg, so in May, then the members and the liaisons can use that schedule to invite people, so, create awareness about the survey. ELISE GERICH: Thank you, that’s good to clarify, Bart. I was thinking we would probably send that schedule earlier because we’re already in the process of pulling together what our schedule will be for next year. If May is when you want it, we can do it in May. BYRON HOLLAND: I would say, Elise, get it to us as soon as you can. This is not a critical timeline item, but as soon as you can. And then at the Joburg meeting we, independent of you getting us the timeline we’ll start to beat the bushes for participation, prime the pump. So, yeah, if we could get that as soon as you can within a reasonable timeline, that’s what we’re looking for. ELISE GERICH: Yes, we’ll get it to you very soon. Thanks for clarifying. MARILIA HIRANO: Sorry to interrupt, Bart, just for your documentation, I noticed that on your notes, the survey is open from 1 August to September 15th. The survey is open from 15 September to 15 October. The period in which we survey, is the customers who have used our service for the period of September 1st until August 30th. So, on September 1st of this year we will be surveying customers who made use of our service from September 1st of 2016 until August 30th 2017, if that’s clear. BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you for that clarification. Okay, with that, recognizing there are 15 more minutes, let’s move onto Agenda item number nine which is Internal Procedures. And Bart and team have circulated a Proposed Procedures Draft but have received only a couple questions online. Anyway, if I could ask Bart to just walk us through and hit the highlights of this document and the things that we should be considering. BART BOSWINKEL: Yes, I’ve included as many of the suggestions. One major one, and this is still up for discussion, what do you consider to be the quorum for the meetings, is it four or three? That’s probably the major one that you need to decide. Then the quorum on decision making, if any, it’s more that you have at least the members present. Again, that was clarified a little bit on the decision making at meetings, it was clarified as well around who consented, etcetera. If it ever comes decision making by email, that’s old. This is probably the old version. STAFF: Yes, I’ll put in the second one. BART BOSWINKEL: Yeah, please put in the second one because this is where you commented on. STAFF: There you go. BART BOSWINKEL: Yeah, thank you. I’ll make it scrollable after I went through it, this way I can prepare it a little bit. Again, changed a little, included a section called General Information. The reason for doing this is to clarify, there were questions, there were members, liaisons and other people may attend meetings and that the role around consensus, etcetera, was that originally we decided that members and liaisons who participate equally to build consensus, but at the end of the day, the quorum, etcetera, it’s members. So, I’ve included the bit about who are the liaisons and members, just to clarify the roles around the decision making. So, based on the feedback received, a meeting is quorum with three members and it will be recorded in the notes. We also want to start maintaining an attendance record, although I’ve said all members or all liaisons are present, at this stage one liaison has not shown up and has not shown up in the previous meetings, although he is subscribed. So, again, because this was a very clear message, I would say, from BTC, that people who put up their hand to participate in this group should commit and I think from that perspective, experience has shown that an attendance record is very helpful so that’s included now as well. Notes and decision making, again that’s clarified based on the feedback received. For the rest, I think there are no real major changes with the exception, as I say, the email list. So, you got the CSC email list and in addition that was one of the comments that the CSC will maintain in announce list so that’s not for a dedicated website, etcetera. And then there are the usual miscellaneous sections. That’s about it, nothing more to add. And just maybe one more thing, looking at the guideline or the internal procedures itself, this is just basically a suggestion how you could run your meetings, take decisions, how it’s recorded, etcetera. In time, and maybe that’s something for further discussion as soon as you will start discussing the remediation procedures, either included in this guideline or start working on a separate procedural guideline. Yeah, that’s up for debate as well, say, no arguments both ways. That’s it, Byron, from my end. BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you, Bart, I think that gets us off to a good start on this issue. Elise has said in the chat, have you mapped it against the terminology and/or of the CSC mandate? Is there anything in the mandate itself that’s inconsistent with what you’ve presented and how do we make sure that the two align from a terminology and/or substance point of view? BART BOSWINKEL: I’d say, I’ve checked and based this on the Charter Bylaws and IANA Functions Agreement. There are three basic documents which are cited as well in the… I didn’t do a direct mapping, say, in the sense of mapped the powers of the CSC which the chair and the members, etcetera, against sections in the Bylaws or Charter or Functions Agreement. What I could do, probably by early next week, is include a kind of table with a list with the different sections to the sections in the bylaws and the other documents, if that’s helpful. BYRON HOLLAND: I think that would be very helpful. Any comments or questions for Bart, or on this subject? So, the one suggestion here is, the quorum that right now it’s sort of an understanding that it’s all four members. At some point it likely needs to go to three members and that could be part of this. My suggestion is that we retain it at four members until the fall, say, October, to make sure that some of this early, formative work includes us all for the early going. And if my (inaudible) colleagues have no objection to that I’m going to make a suggestion that until the end of the first year that we stick with the four for now, but in our procedures, indicate that we will be taking it to three. That’s the suggestion that I have or believe. Okay, Kal is supportive of that for now. And I certainly don’t want to speak for Jay but he probably wouldn’t object to that. Okay, Bart, so if you could reference the other documents within this and then I would ask that all of our liaisons and members take the time to really go through this so we can start to firm it up and if there are any issues that we may have as we start to take a more detailed look at it. It is 26 minutes past the hour. Kal, your hand is up, please go ahead. KAL FEHER: I just wanted to raise a point that I raised initially when this was circulated. Are we going to acknowledge or identify the role that observers can take in any meeting, and I include the CSC meeting in ICANN’s or the phone calls that we would have month to month, whether we encourage observers, whether we discourage or don’t allow observers, and what role they may or may not be able to take? Can they speak or just listen? And that sort of thing. Whether that goes into these operating procedures or not. BART BOSWINKEL: Byron, can I quickly respond? BYRON HOLLAND: Sure, go ahead. BART BOSWINKEL: If you would go to page two, the final sentence on top of Item number four. It says, CSC meetings are open to observers, however they are not entitled to participate actively in the proceedings of the CSC unless explicitly invited by the Chair of the CSC. So, for example, Alan on this call is an observer and you had some others in the past. They may attend these meetings. They are always invited at the face-to-face meetings and I think it’s part of the transparency that it’s open. But they’re not, what you see in other groups as well, they do not participate actively, or not allowed, unless invited to do so. So, for whatever reasons, like Marilia, in a way you could qualify her as an observer but in this case she was specifically invited for an item. Does that address your question/concern, Kal? BYRON HOLLAND: Kal? Okay, he answered in the chat. Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions on this for now? We will definitely be coming back to it. Okay, given that we are at our 89th of 90 minutes, Agenda item number 10 is a potentially substantive one. I’m going to ask that we defer it to the next meeting because I want to respect people’s time and I also have a hard stop. So, we’re going to have to defer that to the next meeting, Agenda item number 10. I’m going to quickly ask is there any other business that anybody wants to flag at this moment, which is Agenda item number 11? Okay, (inaudible) on to the next meeting which has already been discussed in some depth, for Copenhagen. We all have a sense what we need to do and where we’re going there. We have a 90-minute meeting scheduled. I think the basic outline right now is that the first 30 will be kept much more republic or open meeting and then the business at hand we’ll take the following 60, so we’re certainly going to have to be well prepared so we can make the most of our 60 minutes together. So, more to follow on the specific agenda but I would strongly encourage you to get familiar with the operating procedures, also the DAC that’s been put forward and as well as the Development Roadmap for those that are particularly interested in it, so we can come back to that. With that I am going to adjourn today’s meeting. Thank you very much. I think that was a productive 90 minutes and look to your inboxes for more materials and the next iterations of the documents that we have looked at today. And I look forward to seeing everybody in Copenhagen. Thanks everybody. See you soon. [END OF TRANSCRIPTION] Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 7 EN Page PAGE 2 of NUMPAGES \* ARABIC 43 Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 7 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. y | – ™ š › ª ¬ ¸ Â Ã Ó Ô Ü ü ÿ " I K z } „  ’ ø û $ % ' 6 7 [ ^ ƒ ‡ ­ ° ù ü ! I J £ ¦ Ï Ò â å + . / @ C j k   £ ¤ ¥ ´ ¶ 7 : € ƒ „ … ” • ¹ ¼ Ë ä ç üøôðôìôìôèäèÝèøüøèôìèôèôìèôìôìôøôüøôìôÙôìôìôÙôÙôìôìôìôìôìÙôìôÕôìôøÑøôìôìôøüøôìÍôì hû¶ hm0” hi*ù hI2 hµ hµ h7oµ hµ hý4µ hPGL h˜.j h9} hÆ Ý Q š ›  à % ' / ¤ ¥ „ … è é  ž Ê Ë v î ï a ê ê ê ê ê ê ê Ù ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê È ê ê $„@dh ¤ð ^„@a$gd-DÙ $„@dh ¤ð ^„@a$gdI2 $„@„Àôdh ¤ð ^„@`„Àôa$gd9} ç è é ø ú # $ ( ; D { ~ ™ œ  ž ­ ¯ µ · Æ É Ê Ë Ú Û b f Ÿ ­ ³ ´ Ç È ÷ ú r u v ™  ® ± í î I L   £ © ± Û Þ ô ÷ j m î ï þ K N ½ À Î Ñ ë ï ] üøôøüðüøìøèüèüäüðüøôøüàüðüøìøüàüàüàüàüðüðàüÜüðüØüðüðüÔüðüðüðüøÐüðüðüÌüðüÌüÅüÌüh7oµ h7oµ h7oµ hÊ>” h†2ã h%p" hf$± h-DÙ h