ÐÏࡱá > þÿ Í Ð þÿÿÿ Ë Ì ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á cà ð¿ )ô bjbjzz 7> ~]\~]\Áé g ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ · º º 2 2 2 2 2 ÿÿÿÿ F F F 8 ~ ¤ " „ F e t ¦ ¦ ( Î Î Î ä æ æ æ æ æ æ $ Ù! ¶ $ > 2 2 2 Î Î 4 t t t ¢ 2 Î 2 Î ä t ä t t t Î ÿÿÿÿ • )IÓ ÿÿÿÿ ¤ N t Ð 5 0 e t Í$ ò ‚ Í$ t Í$ 2 t \ t t e ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ Í$ º > ø : X BART BOSWINKEL: Ria, could you start the recording, please, and do the roll call? RIA OTANES: Recording has started. Welcome everyone to the CSC Meeting 15. We’ll get started with the roll call. Byron, you confirmed you’re on the call. Jay, are you on the phone? He’s just entering. Elaine also just entered. Kal, are you on the call? KAL FEHER: Yes, I’m on. BART BOSWINKEL: Yes, he is. RIA OTANES: Okay. Jeff sends his apologies. James Gannon hasn’t logged in yet. Elise is on. Elise, are you up on audio? She’s typing in the chat. Lars isn’t on the call yet, neither is – LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: He is, he just joined. RIA OTANES: Oh, he is. Hi, Lars. Welcome. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Thanks. RIA OTANES: And Elise Lindeberg isn’t on yet. From the CSC Review Team, Donna Austin is in the Adobe Connect room. Martin Boyle is also on the Adobe Connect room. Abdalla, and looking for Keith, but I don’t see him on my list. BART BOSWINKEL: We do have a guest, Samantha Eisner, and so over to you, Byron. ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: Bart, I just want to say… It’s Allan MacGillivray. I’m on the phone, but I’m not in the Adobe. Thank you. BART BOSWINKEL: Thank you, Allan. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody, and welcome to our guests to their first CSC meeting I’m assuming. So you have the agenda in front of you which was sent to the group. Before we get going, any comments on the agenda, any additions or changes? Seeing or hearing none, we’ll get going with this agenda, and I would like to welcome Naela in her new capacity as the representative from PTI. So welcome, Naela, in your new role, though you’ve been a regular participant. NAELA SARRAS: Thank you, Byron. BYRON HOLLAND: And also Elise who I guess now you’re sitting in the background. Welcome. At some point, I’d love to hear what your timing is and what’s going on overall. We can save that until Any Other Business at the end. So with that, we’ll move on to Agenda Item #2, which is the discussion with the CSC Charter Review Team and they’ve put forward a couple of questions for us. But with that, I know Donna Austin is on the call and is going to represent the Review Team. We have half an hour allotted for this discussion, so probably don’t need any formal presentations or anything, but just jump right into it and turn it over to Donna. Hello, Donna. DONNA AUSTIN: Can you hear me, Byron? BYRON HOLLAND: Yes. We can hear you now. Welcome. DONNA AUSTIN: Wrong button. So thanks to the CSC for making themselves available for the call today. As you’re all aware – and I know you’ve already done some work on this, there’s a Review Team that’s been put together to conduct a review of the CSC charter, and essentially, that review is to look at more or less whether the charter is serving its purpose in terms of assisting the CSC in doing its work. So while it looks like there are quite a few questions that we’ve got in front of us right now, it’s probably not as bad as [it looks.] By way of background, we did have a conversation with Elaine – I’m going to say it was about a week ago – where she took us through the proposed amendments that the CSC has suggested as a result of the discussions that you have had, and also through some of the challenges you’re having in terms of changing Service Level Agreements. And we probably will try to pick up on that towards the end of the conversation here. So Byron, I think what we’d like to hear initially – and this goes back, we also had a conversation with Elise Gerich last week which I found really helpful, and we decided to have a call with Elise because we were aware that she will be moving on from her role, so we wanted the opportunity to speak to her before she did that. And some of the conversation was really helpful, and it brought to my mind in particular the differences that we’ve had within the charter as it relates to members and liaisons. So we’d like to pick up a little bit on that as a part of this discussion as well. I guess what we want – Bart, can we go back to the original two questions that were on the agenda? BART BOSWINKEL: Ria, can you put them up? DONNA AUSTIN: Great. RIA OTANES: Here you go. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks for that. So I guess what we’d like to hear from your team is how effective the CSC has been in terms of handling their business over the last 12 months, and if there are any kind of big issues that you saw that were – if we changed the charter that we could remedy those. So maybe if I can open it up to your team, Byron. Thanks. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks, Donna. Before I wade in, I’d like to open the floor to any and all who would like to answer that question or at least take a stab at it. So while you’re all reaching for your mics – there you go, okay. Jay, over to you. JAY DALY: Thank you. So Donna, thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. I think the CSC has been very effective. If you look at the measures, first of all, the proper scrutiny of the SLA responses, we’ve done that very effectively. We have the knowledge to be able to do that, and we have the right relationships to do that and the right structure in the way that we meet. So that’s gone very well. If you look at the future direction of travel for the SLA and where that’s going, again that’s very successful for the same reasons. Then if you look at the structural stuff that goes around having a group like this, so the quality of the Chair and the processes that we’re putting into place and all those sorts of things, then again by any objective measure, that’s all been very good. And then finally, if you look at the personal interaction or the nature of the interaction between those on the committee and those in PTI, that’s also been excellent as well. So by all measures so far, I think this is doing very well. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Jay. It certainly seems externally that that is the case, and I think most folks are pretty happy with how the CSC has come together as a team and seems to be working pretty well. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this question before we move on? James, go ahead. JAMES GANNON: Thanks, Donna. Yes, I just want to give a plus one to everything that Jay said, and I want to add an additional thing which I think goes to some of your other, longer-form questions, is that I want to also say thanks to the members and Byron for how liaisons interact with the members. I can certainly say from my perspective there’s been absolutely no differentiation between us, and I can’t think of anything over the last year where we have came to [lock our heads] over the members on, [inaudible] go ahead with something and the liaisons feeling left behind. The CSC to me has really felt like a homogenous team rather than any material split between the members and liaisons, and I think that’s a great way to formally work, and we go ahead to keep that atmosphere and everything we have. I think that’s been very important to the ability of the CSC to coalesce around everything we’ve done. And I just want to say yes, it’s been a very pleasurable experience in the first year anyway, for sure. DONNA AUSTIN: Terrific. Thanks, James. And it was interesting having a conversation with Elise that I hadn’t really thought about, the distinction that we made between the members and liaisons. And when I say “We,” martin and I were involved in a smaller drafting team that developed the charter to the CSC, so I guess when I’m saying “we,” that’s what I’m referring to. But it’s good to know that while we had a distinction there which was really to enable us to restrict the membership and liaisons for the CSC, it’s good to know that there’s been kind of open communication and that that hasn’t caused any demarcation, I suppose, on any issues. So that’s good to know. Ria, I think we can go to the other slide now, the more detailed questions. BYRON HOLLAND: Donna, before we jump into this, I just want to add another comment, and this is as it pertains to the selection of the folks on this committee, and I guess in particular as it pertains to the registry operator folks. I think it’s important to acknowledge the processes by which those two communities put people forward, and the previous two speakers have been very positive and laudatory, and I would certainly echo that. We’ve had some really good discussions. We haven’t all necessarily agreed on everything, but we come to consensus discussion. And in part that’s – I just want to say that, and this may sound self serving, it’s not meant to be – the quality of the people that the communities put forward is very important to have the depth of understanding required to be part of this community, and I think it’s very important that those communities recognize how important the membership is. And as people move in and out of this committee just to reinforce the fact that a lot of the work that we do here is relatively detailed, you have to have a good understanding of it from an operator’s perspective, at least on the members’ side, and certainly from an overall perspective on the liaisons’ side. And just recognize the importance of that during essentially the nominations phase or the surfacing of members from their respective communities. And I think all the communities have done a great job this go around, and part of what you heard in the words about just culture and operating environment so far is as a result of that. So it will be important to continue to do that and to not necessarily remind, but highlight the fact that the communities have done a great job so far, and let’s make sure that they recognize the importance of that and continue on. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Byron. That’s good information. If I can just drill down on that a little bit, the terms that we have in CSC – and I’m very mindful here that what the Review Team is is specifically related to the charter, and not the efficiency of the CSC, but I’m sure that it’s going to be hard to separate that in some instances, but within the CSC, it does identify the terms to all the candidates, and it’s a two-year period and up to two additional two-year terms. And I think the initial intention is that there will be some kind of staggering so that when there is a swap-out, that you’re not losing all your members at the same time. So do you have any I guess feedback on the terms? Have you discussed that at all? Thanks, Byron. BYRON HOLLAND: We have not had any specific conversation on term length, at least not that I can recall, other than in determining who’s doing what, and I think the staggered approach is appropriate, especially as we kick this off. But we haven’t had any specific conversation on term length other than actually identifying who’s doing which term to start with. DONNA AUSTIN: Okay. Thanks, Byron. Check the chat. Okay. So one of the questions – and I’m sorry I’m jumping around a little bit – that we did ask Elise was the role of the CSC was deliberately kept narrow when the charter was originally developed, and I just wondered whether you had views on whether keeping the charter intentionally narrow was useful for the CSC, or whether you think it could have helped in some way of if it was a little less strict, I suppose. Do you have any thoughts on that, Byron or – okay, Jay, I see your hand up. Go ahead. JAY DALY: Thank you. Could you give me an idea of where you thought – or anybody else thought – it might need broadening to? DONNA AUSTIN: Personally, I don’t think it does, Jay. But I’m very conscious that as we get into these discussions with the broader community, there might be some call to open up the scope of the CSC. Now, I’m not sure whether that falls into what the Review Team is doing, but I’m really kind of interested to see whether as members of the original CSC, whether you feel that keeping the scope narrow was useful to the work that you’re doing. JAY DALY: One of the things is that PTI have been very good in sharing things with us, even if it goes outside of our scope. So for example, the satisfaction survey they shared in some detail with us, and I think we’ve not abused that sharing by trying to overreach, simply just by sort of – how should we say – noses in, fingers out. And so that’s been very useful. I can see that if there was a different attitude from PTI and certain things were not shared in that way, then there might be no proper community engagement of some of those things. But I think that’s extremely unlikely to happen. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Jay. And I note in chat that James thinks one of the reasons it works so well today is because it is quite focused. So I think that’s good feedback for us as well, and pretty much the same from Kal. I’ll just wait for Martin because I see he’s typing something. Byron, go ahead. Thanks. BYRON HOLLAND: Yes, I would echo that. And certainly from the Chair’s perspective, the fact that it has a focused remit I think is important, and it allows us to be focused on the technical elements of PTI and ensure the relevant oversight of that and be able to provide what I think would be hopefully considered sort of an unbiased perspective that we can share with the community. You broaden it out to many other issues not knowing what those issues might be, but I suspect they could easily become more qualitative than quantitative, and thereby potentially limit the trust and reliance that some people might have on the reports that we produce because of its focused nature I think that in part allows us to be the trusted, credible party that we’re attempting to be. So I think the focused remit is good. Thanks. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Byron. Elise? ELISE GERICH: Hi. I’d like to just add my voice to those who’d said that the focused approach has been very helpful, and I think to the earlier question about the membership of the CSC, I think having a focused scope and a narrow scope has allowed the community to also look at the types of qualifications that they look for in the members of the CSC. And if it’s too broad, then you end up with people who potentially don’t have I guess the depth of knowledge that this group has had, which has been able to help guide, shape the CSC. So I think the narrow focus helps also in the selection of membership. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Elise. Jay? JAY DALY: There are two potential directions of broadening I can see that may be considered in future. I don’t see any need to consider them now, but I’d just highlight then for you. I very much agree with the comments about the focused remit. So I’m not trying to push it beyond that, it’s just I think given that your role, I think it’s important to raise these with you. The first one is around a more formal role in the customer satisfaction survey, and in terms of providing some sort of customer view of the response plan that might be generated from it, or part of that process anyway. So there’s a formal role for a customer to look at how that survey is developed and what the ongoing outcomes of it are. And the second one is in terms of the development roadmap for PTI, which is something that we as CSC members – or a number of us – are approached regularly by members of our community about, and which we are having tentative conversations with PTI about, but there’s no formal role about those. And PTI is a little while off having the type of publicly shared roadmap that would be appropriate for a group like us to be able to comment on. But those are two points for you. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Jay. That’s helpful. So I think moving through the questions, we have a number of questions here which are related to the interaction between members and liaisons, and distinction of the roles. I won’t read through them piece by piece, but I guess I’m interested to hear from the liaisons as well as the members of the CSC as to whether you think that the charter has done a good job in identifying what he different roles and responsibilities are – although I think it’s pretty vague on it, to be honest – and whether there’s any need to perhaps make that a little bit more – what’s the word I’m looking for? – obvious within the charter. So I guess I’ll just open that up to the liaisons and members of the CSC. Lars, go ahead. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Thank you. I guess I will have to pick up the baton, being one of the liaisons. In the way it’s worked so far, it’s been working very well. As I’m a liaison from RSSAC and we [inaudible] not having a stake in this, the only thing we need to do in this group is to make sure that there is a way for us to communicate if the root server operators are seeing any problems as an effect of what the PTI does. That has of course not been the case at all, but we’re not part of the agreement that governs the PTI operations. So it’s been working very well. Now, that probably comes down partly to the way the group is put together with the personalities, and I’m impressed by how well it works. So being a person of the general opinion, “If it works, don’t fix it,” I see no immediate reason to make a change. On the other hand, if we foresee that there will be a different future, maybe we should take a look at it. But I don’t see actually a reason to fiddle with that right now. Thank you. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Lars. Just a quick follow-up question. I note that we’re pushing up against time a little bit, but from an RSSAC perspective, is the CSC a good opportunity for – I guess the members are direct customers of IANA, and I just wonder whether for the liaisons, is there value in that relationship that you have developed with some of the direct members of IANA through the CSC? Is that helping a better understanding of what IANA is and does? LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: To me, it’s good to have a very clear and direct relationship, in this case both with IANA and also with the direct customers. So this is a very distinct channel, and that’s important. It’s important for the root server operators to have such a distinct channel, and this is not the only one. The other one is RZERC which is an even more technical group. But we definitely see value in both groups, and we do see them as important channels to convey possible future messages regarding problems of operations, or foreseeing problems that may arise, to have a way to communicate with the direct customers. So yes, there’s value in that. Thank you. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Lars. So I guess that’s an unintended consequence. If we think about the membership and the liaisons, there’s certainly some value in networking and information sharing that’s been helpful. Byron, I know you had your hand up. Was there anything else you wanted to add, or are you okay to move on? BYRON HOLLAND: No, I’m okay to move on. I just learned that pressing your space key raises your hand. That’s the only reason it was up there. DONNA AUSTIN: Okay. I just want to do a time check because I’m not sure whether we had 30 minutes for this or 60 minutes. BYRON HOLLAND: We have 30 minutes for this, so you’re bumping up against your end of time. Another five minutes or so. DONNA AUSTIN: Okay. Great. The charter is quite specific about meeting on a monthly basis and meeting with the community three times a year. And I know in the suggested changes to the charter, you suggested that we change it from three times a year to no less than twice a year, I think. And we did have some discussion with Elise as about whether meeting once a month was too much or too little. So I’m interested to understand from CSC whether the monthly meetings have worked well and whether that is something that we should maintain. BYRON HOLLAND: I’ll jump in on that. I think certainly in the first year, monthly has been helpful because not only are we doing the regular run rate business of reviewing the PTI report, but we’ve been working on these other activities, and I think that monthly has been appropriate for that. Once we move past some of the lumpier work that we’re doing as part of the initial CSC and when we get to a point when it’s strictly reviewing the monthly report, I think it would be worthwhile having a discussion about having monthly face-to-face/virtual meetings and whether some of that may be done more online or not. And I’m not presupposing an outcome there, I’m just suggesting that at such point as we are primarily doing the run rate business of reviewing the report, particularly when the PTI has met 100% of the SLA thresholds, that there may be an opportunity to discuss timing or type of meeting that’s been being had. Thanks. DONNA AUSTIN: Thanks, Byron. Just a quick follow-up, what’s the attendance rate been like to the last – well, it’s not quite 12 months. What are we into, about 10-11 months now? Actually, we are into 12 months. Sorry, not sure if that question got through, but I see Ria has put the attendance in the chat, so we can look at that later. I’m very conscious of time. I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to talk to the CSC as we go through this process. We will have a session with the community in Abu Dhabi and we will also have individual sessions with the ccNSO and the Registry Stakeholder Group. And I think – I’m not sure, I think there was some discussion of a pre-meeting earlier in the month. So I think this has been very helpful as a first conversation, but I expect that we’ll have a couple more with you along the way. Just before I close out, are there any further questions from the CSC Review Team members? Okay, doesn’t look like we have any more. And I’m sorry I didn’t really stay to the script here, but I think we’ve covered some good ground and I think as an initial conversation, this has been a good one. So Byron and team, thank you for your time, and we’ll look forward to continuing the discussion as we go through this process. Thanks. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, Donna, and the rest of your team. So for the CSC, we’ll carry on with our agenda now. Ria, if I could ask you to put the agenda back up. But essentially, Item #3 is the action items, and I would say that all the action items are either completed, or we will be speaking to them in a further agenda item. So unless there’s any comment or disagreement on that, we’ll just carry on to Agenda Item #3. Okay, with that, we’ll move to Agenda Item #3, which is the PTI report. And certainly, I’m happy to see that once again, PTI has met 100% of the SLA threshold. But Naela, over to you. Anything you would like to draw our attention to? NAELA SARRAS: Yes. Thank you, Byron. So no, the data pretty much tells – I think this is our fourth month in a row meeting 100% of the SLAs. The only thing I’ll draw your attention to is at the end of the report in the addendum piece where we used to include information about root server changes and revocations, you won’t see this in this month’s report because we added the functionality to RZMS to report on revocations and root server changes in the data that’s compiled in the first 30-some pages of the report. So that’s the only change this month. It’s a positive change for us, it means we don’t have to manually compile that data. And it means we now can focus more on the work we’re doing with Kal and Elaine on the IDN table processing and further refine that reporting and presenting more data on that. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. That’s good news. On the report or anything in it, any questions or comments for Naela? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll hopefully flip back to the agenda, and Agenda Item 3(b) is the CSC report itself, which a draft report has been circulated, and just wanted to see if there are any comments or concerns on the draft report already circulated. I’ll take that as a no, so that report looks fine. And we take that as approved. Anyone against? Any abstentions? Okay, approved. Thank you very much. Back to the agenda. Item #4 is timeline for implementation of the technical suite. I know Naela has provided an update to the list earlier, but Naela, could I again ask you to speak to it? NAELA SARRAS: Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. So I think as I said in the update, we’ve focused our efforts in the first year since the transition was completed to finish the automation of two more features that needed to go into RZMS, and that’s the revocation and the root server changes. So we just put all of our efforts there, and kind of put on hold a little bit the rewrite of the technical checks. Now that that’s done and released, we can focus back on RZM 3.0 which will include the rewriting of the technical checks to do the serializing of technical checks instead of parallel so that it will improve the performance time, for example. We sort of kind of relaunched the project about a couple of weeks ago. We have a new product manager on board, a new project manager on board, and we expect the schedule to be developed in the next few weeks where we’ll know more about development time and have a more accurate estimation of when we can have that feature released, which is basically – it’s pretty much a major rewrite of all the technical checks with better messaging, etc. So we should have in the next few weeks better estimation on times, more accurate estimation on times. BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you very much. Any comments or questions for Naela on this agenda item? No? Okay. We will move on to Agenda Item #5, which is around the SLA change. And I know there’s been some dialog with Sam Eisner who’s a guest on our call here today. Welcome, Sam. SAM EISNER: Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: And there’s been some dialog with Sam about how to make these SLA changes, and do we have to go through as heavyweight a process as we have potentially thought, etc. And I’m wondering, Sam, if you could walk us through from your perspective the requirements for any changes to the SLA, particularly in the context of the type that this group has been discussing recently. SAM EISNER: Sure. Thanks, Byron, and thanks for having me. This is Sam Eisner again from ICANN Legal. So in looking at the SLA changes, we looked specifically at the naming function agreement and where the SLAs are housed in the agreement. And there’s actually a specific amendment clause that goes directly to those SLAs, so this is really for items that are housed within 2(c) of Annex A, so it goes to a particular area, but that’s really where most of your SLAs will come out of. And so there, it allows for either PTI or ICANN as the parties to the IANA naming functions agreement to initiate a change to the SLAs and then to discuss the requested changes and then mutually agree in writing without having to go through the broader contractual modification process that goes to the rest of the IANA Naming Functions Agreement. So from that aspect, I think that’s probably – hopefully – good news to the CSC that we don’t see a really drawn out contractual change process once there’s agreement between PTI and the CSC about what a specific SLA change should be. Some of the other things we looked at were even in the development of the initial IANA naming functions agreement, the specific SLAs – and they’re very operationally based. We’re not subject to public comment as with the rest of the agreement. It was something that was agreed to between a group of IANA naming functions customers and those performing the IANA functions. And so with that, I know you guys have done a lot of work here, and you see on the screen in front of you the language that I was referring to. This is from a short e-mail that was circulated. I don’t know if it went to the entire CSC or not, but I believe Bart had an opportunity to forward it at least to Byron at the end of last week. And so we think that the really big things that need to happen within the process – and I think that the work that the CSC has done to date captures that CSC and PTI need to agree that there’s a modification to the SLA, so that can be either brought up by PTI or by the CSC. And you’d want that agreement reflected in minutes if there’s actually information as to the specific standard that you want it changed to or thing that needs to be added. You could reflect that in there too. The CSC would then help consult or socialize that change with the naming functions customer. We wouldn’t see this from the ICANN or PTI org side as requiring a public comment. If the CSC believes that that’s the most effective way to engage and consult with the customers of the IANA naming function on the modification, that could be something that the CSC requires to be part of the process. But I don’t think from the ICANN side we say that has to be a requirement. There has to be some sort of document on [vocation] I think that’s where the CSC comes into play with understanding how you interact with those that you’re representing on the CSC. And you want to make sure that you’re reaching the appropriate and impacted customers. So once the agreement is reached on the appropriate SLA, then here’s another place where I think the CSC has some ability to liaise with the PTI customers to understand what the appropriate thresholds might be to show agreement to that change for the SLA. So whereas we find for some of the other parts of the IANA naming functions contract there must be certain thresholds met of approval within both the ccNSO and the GNSO Council, the council level approval – particularly on the GNSO side – might not be the appropriate threshold that the CSC finds to document that the naming functions customers approve of it. It might be different on the ccNSO side because there’s such a strong correlation between ccNSO membership and customer relationship with PTI. So this is another place where I think the CSC has some work to do with its customers to understand what level of threshold would need to be met, and then from the ICANN and PTI side, we’d want to see documentation that that threshold was reached. And then assuming that there’s agreement between CSC and PTI and what that change needs to be, and those appropriate thresholds were met and documented, then it would be a very rare case I think that we could anticipate that there would have to be any sort of board approval of the SLA change. It would be more so an issue of notification that there’s agreement on the change, and then PTI and ICANN would then, given all the documentation produced through the CSC process take that as documenting the agreement that’s needed to effectuate the change to the written agreement without Board approval. If there were situations where an SLA change would impose a very material change in the resources needed, maybe that would be something that would require Board approval. We have certain contracting limits that we abide by or just certain disbursement limit. That would be probably a very rare case that a change would require hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement a change. Separately, if it’s something that might require change to a different contract, for example if an SLA change also required modification to the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement, we might have to consider if there were additional requirements we’d put in to make sure that that happens appropriately. But at least as we look at it for your kind of more standard, run off the mill changes like the one that you guys have been talking about, we wouldn’t say that PTI or ICANN Board approval would be required for that. So with that, I’ll turn that back to you, Byron. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks, Sam. That’s very helpful, and I think good news for us. James, I see your hand is up. Go ahead. JAMES GANNON: Thanks, Byron. So yes, first of all, I think it was me who was going to make an issue out of this. I’m very happy to see that this is something we can go ahead with a lightweight approach to. Sam, a quick question. Speaking about ICANN would need evidence of us having met those thresholds, are we speaking about notification thresholds, or is this a positive acceptance needs to be proved? If we circulate this amongst the various IANA customers and it’s put out there for a specific period of time, 30 days or whatever and no objections are met, is that meeting the documented threshold? Or what way would that work? SAM EISNER: James, I think that really depends on what thresholds are set. I think from the initial process standpoint, what I’d say – and I haven’t really talked much with my colleagues about this, but – if the CSC has talked amongst the customers that you all represent and has agreed that if something is out there for 30 days with no substantial documentation of objection, if that’s the threshold that you set and that’s what’s agreed upon to show that this is an okay change for the customers of the IANA function and PTI, then we would accept the documentation of that. And so if you’d show us mailing lists or whatever, that’s how we’d take that. Or maybe there’s a final short report produced that said it went out to these communities on this date and no responses, or just a summary of the responses that were received as that matter of documentation. If you were to set up a different threshold, then we would maybe come to some sort of an agreement about what the documentation of that threshold would be. I think one of the things that’s important from the ICANN side and the PTI side as well is we don’t want to tell you as the CSC what your threshold level needs to be. That’s the matter for you as the representative of the customers who agree with those who you’re representing on the group. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, Sam. Jay, go ahead. JAY DALY: Thanks. Hi. Sam, Kal and I have developed some draft procedures for this which effectively looks at the nature of the change that is being proposed, and depending on the nature of the change, sets the threshold as to whether or not it needs to go to broader consultation or can be dealt with within the CSC and PTI. Is that something you’ve looked at, and do you have any view on it? SAM EISNER: Thanks, Jay. I haven’t looked at that. I’d be happy to take a look at it, but that sounds like – from where I sit just hearing your description of it, that sounds like a really good way to handle it. But I’d be happy to take a look at the exact language of the process if you wanted me to do that. And I know Bart is indicating to me that I have it. I’m sorry if I haven’t seen it, but I will. JAY DALY: That’s okay. Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: I know Bart can be helpful like that. Any other questions for Sam on this topic? No? Okay, so the action item now is Sam, you’ll get back to us upon your review of Kal and Jay’s document. SAM EISNER: Sounds good. And then after that, if you have any other things you want me to take a look at, just reach out. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Sam. Any other discussion on Agenda Item #5, the SLA changes? I think it goes without saying that we’ll be discussing this in Abu Dhabi with our respective communities and taking feedback from our communities. Okay. Well, seeing or hearing nothing further on Agenda Item #5, we’ll move to #6, an update and status on our remedial action procedures. And I’m going to ask Allan to speak to this one. Allan, over to you. ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: Thank you, Byron. Maybe I could ask Ria to just put up that one slide. So as Byron said, I just want to give a brief update on where we are and [ask that you] propose a way forward. There was a working group established on the RAPs. I’m going to use the acronym, everyone get used to it. And coming out of that process was actually a draft text which has been circulated, and you should all have it. I’m not sure every one of you have read it in detail, but what I want to propose today is at least to review what I’m calling the main elements of the approach and discuss maybe how we will do it with the longer, textual version of this. So what you see on the screen now is the kind of flowchart of how we’re proposing to have the RAPs function. The whole triggering of the RAPs turns on what is called a performance issue as defined in the IANA naming functions agreement. And so this is the trigger for the potential for the RAPs to be invoked. So that’s almost the first step, and it’s the identification of the existence of a so-called performance issue. Now, I’ll just note at this point that this aspect was not something that was contemplated in the so-called [illustrative] procedures that are in the CSC charter. They had a number of other potential triggers, but as many of us know, a lot of things have evolved from when that was actually completed. And so once the performance issue is triggered, then CSC would attempt to find resolution with PTI before actually invoking the RAPs. Obviously, if it is resolved, nothing would occur. If it isn’t resolved, then the RAPs are invoked. The first requirement of the RAPs would be for the development of what we’re labeling a corrective action plan by PTI and the president of CSC. And that would actually form the basis and the framework under which there would be escalations. And effectively, the triggers would be effectively any deviation from that plan, which would obviously be failure to meet a milestone, but actually failure to complete a plan wouldn’t be a trigger for escalation. Failure to provide an update would be another, for example. And so what we’re proposing is that there be three levels of so-called escalations. The first would be to the PTI Board, the second would be to the ICANN CEO, and the third would be to the ICANN Board. Now, I would note that in the so-called illustrative procedures, they also had three levels of escalation, but they were firstly to the president of PTI, then to the PTI Board, and lastly to what they called ICANN CEO oblique ICANN Board. I’m sorry, I actually misspoke. Their first level of escalation was to the president of the Global Domains Division. And we’re proposing to remove that, because in fact the president of the Global Domains Division at ICANN sits on the PTI Board, so I think that would be subsumed in that first level of escalation. And secondly, we’re proposing to separate ICANN CEO from ICANN Board in terms of the next two levels of escalations. So those are, in a thumbnail, the main elements of the RAPs. Let me pause there and invite questions or comments. BYRON HOLLAND: Lars, go ahead, and then Elaine. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Thank you. [Just one of the] least nefarious questions. The first green box, corrective action plan agreed by the CSC and PTI president. What happens if they don’t agree? ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: Then that’s an incident that can prompt an escalation. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Okay. Thanks. BYRON HOLLAND: Elaine? ELAINE PRUIS: Allan, I don’t know if you saw my comment in the chat, but do we need an arrow from the green corrective action plan agreed to to the resolved box, or is the step of actually creating a corrective action plan considered an escalation to the PTI Board? ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: Well, certainly the writing of the plan does not resolve the issue. It’s just the plan to resolve the issue. So maybe that’s a deficiency in the schematic, but certainly, it’s possible after the plan is put in place and if it’s actually respected, then it could actually be resolved. And maybe I do need another arrow there. Yes, I think you’re right. Thank you, Elaine. BYRON HOLLAND: Good catch, Elaine. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on this? Okay. Hearing, seeing none, we’ll move on to – ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: I want to give next steps. BYRON HOLLAND: Next steps? Carry on. ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: So when I was drafting the text version of these, I put a draft out, and there were comments from the working group. I ended up completely rewriting them, and it sort of indicated that as a non-lawyer, this is going to probably be subject to some kind of drafting exercise. And in actually chatting with Bart, we recognize that it’s quite likely that the PTI Board would want ICANN Legal to have a look at the text version before the PTI Board could sign off on that. So recognizing that, I thought it would be premature to put a text version before the CSC for us to go through that process. And rather, what I’m proposing we do is – and I hope Sam is still with us today – is to suggest that if it’s recognized that the PTI Board will seek some legal input, then we get that done at this point in the process. And then when we achieve some stability on that text, then we as a committee can come back and approve that. So that’s how I suggest we move forward. If it would be possible to do that before Abu Dhabi, that might be aggressive. Maybe we can even approve it there. Failing that, we maybe just – I would deal with it later in the year. So I don’t know if Sam is there and whether there’s any sense of that. Sam, I know that Bart may have raised this with you very late in the day, but do you have any comment on what I’ve said? BYRON HOLLAND: Sam, I see you’re still in the Adobe chat room. Okay. Well, maybe we will put that as an action item to ask Sam if she can do the review for us. Ideally prior to Abu Dhabi, such that we can have time to receive and reflect on it before the Abu Dhabi meeting. ALLAN MACGILLIVRAY: Okay, and I’ll just make one other minor comment. As a result of this being on here, I did get some feedback on the longer text today from PTI, from Naela. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to integrate the comments I received from her today into the draft that I circulated on September 20th and turn that back out, and maybe we’ll let that be the draft that hopefully ICANN Legal can have a look at. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments on the remedial action procedures agenda item? Okay, seeing none, if we could go back to the agenda and move to Agenda Item #7, Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi is quickly coming upon us, and one of the outstanding questions is various meetings that we hope to have, should be having, not the least of which was whether we should be having one with the Board, to which I understand we do have the opportunity to meet with the Board. It will be a little more informal, and not with the whole Board, because there are some conflicting Board meetings. But Ria, could I ask you – yes, thank you, to pull it up. You’re already ahead of me. And just walk us through the CSC meetings. And then of course we should identify who’s going to be the lead at each meeting. This is extremely small font for me. BART BOSWINKEL: Byron, I’ll run you through it. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. BART BOSWINKEL: The first one is the CSC public meeting, which will be on Sunday. This is your regular – I would say not regular, it’s a working meeting of the full CSC. So that’s on Sunday in block three from 1:30 until 3:00. And if you look at the agenda, you will see in the chat, in the notes pod you will see some topics to be discussed. But that’s just a suggestion. So the draft of the presentation of one year of CSC, discussion on remedial action procedures, SLA change procedures, next steps, proposed changes to the SLA and inform the community. So that’s on the 29th. The 31st – so on Tuesday – ccNSO Members Day 1, and I assume that will be Jay and Byron. It’s part of the PTI session. It includes a CSC update and will also include the CSC review or the charter review. On Tuesday as well, the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group Members’ Meeting. The [inaudible] is scheduled from 12:30 until 3:00. I don’t know what time and which session, but I assume Kal and Elaine will be there to present. And then on Wednesday, you have a lunch meeting with the CSC Board, and as Byron already alluded to, it will not be the full Board because we managed to have one at the same time it’s a very good opportunity to share the one-year anniversary with the Board as well. And the CSC Charter Review Team may be present there as well to check with them or check in what is going on. Then on Thursday – and again, this is an opportunity, this is a [launch] meeting for you, it’s the CSC wrap-up meeting. And we’ve scheduled this tentative, but given there is a [launch], you’re kindly invited to attend that meeting. And we haven’t thought through our proposed agenda for that meeting. Related meetings are the CSC Review Team, so if you are interested, any of you, there is an informal press meeting of the CSC Review Team on Sunday morning. The CSC Review Team will have a public session, right before your lunch with the Board, and it will be in the same room. So that’s Wednesday, block two, and the CSC will have its wrap-up session Wednesday, late in the afternoon from 6:30 until 8:00. Room to be determined, and I don’t know if you need that long. That’s your schedules for the Abu Dhabi meeting. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks for the walkthrough, Bart. So definitely for a given group, we have quite a few meetings through the course of the week. I’m going to suggest that for the ccNSO and the GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group, that between each of the respective sets of members, we’ll leave it up to them to determine who’s going to be the point person in each of those meetings so as to turn that responsibility over to each of those [pairs of] members to be sorted out amongst themselves. Naela, your hand is up, and then Lars as well. Go ahead, Naela. NAELA SARRAS: Thank you, Byron. So since we’re talking schedule, we just wanted to mention the PTI will also be having a session on Monday, 2:15 in the afternoon, to kind of just run over one year of PTI and how things have been set up, and the successes we’ve had so far, etc. So yes, that session is happening on Monday at 2:15. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thank you for that. And Ria, can I ask you to add that to our calendar here so that we are all very aware of it? Thank you. Lars, go ahead. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Just a quick clarifying question. The very first slot, the CSC public session. I understand that it’s a working session for the CSC where we invite observers, right? We are not addressing an audience, if that’s correct. BYRON HOLLAND: That’s correct, yes. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Okay. Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Yes, our regular – or such as it has been, given the number of ICANN meetings we’ve all been at, but our regular working session. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks. Naela, your hand is up. Is that something different? NAELA SARRAS: No, sorry. Old hand. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks for the confirmation on the meetings. Moving on to the next item is the presentation deck. Everybody I believe has received that. It’s relatively lengthy at this point, but there are definitely some filler slides and some to-be-determined slides. It is 18 pages as it stands. The goal would be to tighten that up before we have to deliver it to our respective communities. So I’m not looking to wordsmith it today by any stretch. [At least] we certainly have time and also some time at our just discussed meeting on the 29th. I think if we go to the last page of it, we’ll just cut to the chase in terms of where it’s headed or what it essentially says, which is really the summary slide. And effectively, that PTI performance has been very good, that we as a committee are coming together and working through our to-do list. And so far, the process seems to be working well. And the action item for the rest of the community is they need to begin to play their role, be it CSC Charter Review or the effectiveness review the year after that, and any feedback we need from our respective communities as we’ve just been discussing. So this is an 18-page deck that we’ve put together. Here is the summary. If there are any particular concerns with the summary, feel free to voice them. We do have time to fine tune this deck, and we will. And certainly with the objective of getting it to be a tighter package so those of us who do end up delivering it can do it in a concise way. And this will be available for everybody before we get to Abu Dhabi. Any comments on that before I move on? This is more of an FYI item, but any thoughts or comments? No. Okay. I ask you to flip back to the agenda, Ria, and we’ll go on to 7(c), and that’s really the face-to-face working meetings. Let’s bring this up. So for the face-to-face meeting, here are a number of suggested topics. We’ve discussed some of them already. Certainly the year in review we’ve already discussed, remedial action procedures we’ve had some discussion about. We will need to work through some of the SLA change procedures and have that discussion in Abu Dhabi, and the proposed changes. Now, I know Jay and Kal have already done most of the heavy lifting on this, so it’d probably make sense to volunteer you guys again to continue on and follow up with this at our face-to-face meeting, and Any Other Business that we need to attend to. So one question I have for the group is, is there anything that should be included in the other category, anything known at this point? Of course while we’re there, if something comes up, we can certainly add it as AOB. But are we missing anything here that we should add to the agenda at this time? I don’t think there are any surprises with what’s on here now. BART BOSWINKEL: Byron, Elaine has her hand up. Or had her hand up. BYRON HOLLAND: Elaine, go ahead. ELAINE PRUIS: Thanks. I was already jumping down to Item #8, Any Other Business. Can I go there, or are we still on #7? BYRON HOLLAND: Let’s just – I see Naela has just put her hand up. Is it with – NAELA SARRAS: Yes. BYRON HOLLAND: Item #7? NAELA SARRAS: Yes. Thanks, Byron. I think I’m kind of in the same boat as Elaine. I also wanted to talk about Any Other Business, specifically the customer survey and how it will play out during Abu Dhabi. So you can put me wherever you think is appropriate. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Well, since Elaine had her hand up first, I’ll let Elaine go, and then you’re next, Naela. Elaine, go ahead. ELAINE PRUIS: Thank you. I just wanted to address the issue of communicating with CSC Review Team the information that Sam Eisner had shared. So our suggested changes to the charter had some language in the charter itself about the SLA, and I don’t think Donna was still on the phone when Sam was talking, so Byron, do you know if Donna and Martin have seen Sam’s note, and is there a plan to share that information with them? Or should I do that as the liaison? BART BOSWINKEL: As Byron dropped off, just as a matter of fact, the CSC Review Team has not received the note. So it is in fact [inaudible] BYRON HOLLAND: Sorry, Bart. I was just talking away there on mute. My apologies. And I was just going to – or I did just say I don’t see any issue with it and making sure that Donna gets it. I know that Keith and Martin are still in the Adobe Connect room, so presumably they’ve seen it, but I will make sure that Donna gets a copy of this. ELAINE PRUIS: Okay. Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks, Elaine. I will do that as a to-do. Naela, over to you regarding the survey. And I’d just remind everybody that one of the slides in the deck does deal with the survey. In fact, more than one. Naela, over to you. NAELA SARRAS: Okay. Excellent. So that half answers my question. We also have an option to bring with us – because one of the things we’ve heard over the years is people get the survey and I’m not sure who – Ubiquity is the survey provider. So we have an option to bring with us like a PDF, something printed out that explains who Ubiquity is and why they should participate in the survey. Would this be of interest, maybe for the CSC to hand out during the session? Or if you didn’t want to do a handout of a physical paper, to include the PDF about Ubiquity in your presentation. Or whatever the CSC feels is appropriate. We certainly appreciate and thank your effort to help us promote the survey and get better response this time. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks, Naela. I think that’s a good idea. I’m not sure about printing a lot of paper, but if we could have whatever is in that file, I think depending on what it is, but assuming it’s the right thing, as we present out message to our respective constituencies, if we could have that as a file that when we speak to the survey, we could put that up and let people know, and create awareness or [sell the hope] of people participating using that as information, but perhaps just as a presentation item in our actual presentation. NAELA SARRAS: Okay. Great. Certainly. I believe [Ria] has already sent it to Allan, so if Allan could take lead on circulating it among the CSC and agree if that’s something that could be used, that’d be great. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Will do. So we’ll take that as an action item. NAELA SARRAS: Excellent. Thanks. BYRON HOLLAND: [inaudible] not to get ahead of myself since I certainly haven’t seen it, but it sounds like the kind of thing that we would want to do and would be helpful. NAELA SARRAS: Fair enough. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Any other Any Other Business? Ria – RIA OTANES: Hi, Byron. I have one. BYRON HOLLAND: Yes, okay. I was just going to say, Ria, your hand is up. RIA OTANES: Yes. I just wanted to let everyone know the CSC report we used to send to the RrSG and RySG mailing list as an attachment, but to reduce the individual e-mails, they requested just a mass e-mail as part of the mass e-mail that they send every whatever timeframe they have. So those groups receive our report a few days later than when we send it to the other groups, and we just wanted to know if you had any feedback about that. But that’s how it’s going to be sent moving forward. BYRON HOLLAND: They have asked for that, those groups asked for that? RIA OTANES: For less e-mails. not specifically for the CSC report, just for individual e-mails. They want all of the information that’s going to be sent to them just in one bulk e-mail. So what we’ve been doing is sending a link to the CSC report, but they don’t send this e-mail on the days that we send out to the other communities. I’m sorry if that doesn’t make sense. BYRON HOLLAND: I think I get the basic premise, which is – RIA OTANES: Trang can clarify. Sorry. She has her hand raised. It’s the GDD. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Can I hear from Trang then and just bump the line here? Trang, go ahead. Can you clarify? And also, maybe do you have any thought on that community receiving this days or some period after it’s available? TRANG NGUYEN: Thanks, Byron. The way that the monthly CSC report has been distributed to the registrars and the registries is that for the registrars, we forward your communication basically with the attachment to the CSC report to an e-mail distribution list that goes to al registrars. So we had been sending it as a separate communication to all registrars, basically as soon as your e-mail goes out to the other SOs and AC groups. The request internally – and this is an internal ICANN request from the Registrars Engagement Team – is that rather than sending that e-mail as a separate e-mail on whatever day of the month it happens to be that the CSC report is finalized, rather than doing that on a standalone basis, they typically try to consolidate all ICANN-related communications to registrars. I believe it goes out once a month. And so they asked that the CSC report – and your communication, Byron – be included in that consolidated e-mail communication to the registrars that goes out once a month. And I don’t have the exact date that that communication goes out, but it essentially is just to minimize the number of communications that the registrars are getting. On the registry side, it’s a little bit more complex, because the distribution to the registries have to go through our global support center, and they do require a few days’ lead time in order to get that communication out. So it’s been going out approximately three days after everybody else gets the report. But similar to the registrars, internal to ICANN, we have been trying to consolidate communications that are going out to the registries as well, and so the request is that rather than sending the CSC report out a separate communication, that it gets lumped together with the mass communication that goes out to all registries once a month. So that’s the request moving forward. As you know, separately, [inaudible] distribute the CSC report as soon as it comes out to the RySG, the Registries Stakeholder Group, as well as the Registrar Stakeholder Group. So those stakeholder groups get them immediately. It’s the other registries and registrars that aren’t part of those stakeholder groups that get them a little later. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Comments or thoughts? There are a couple of hands up. Lars, go ahead, and then James. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Thank you. I see very little problem with this, because to begin with, I don’t see our reports as very time sensitive. To be frank, what are they going to do with the contents of that within the two days delay? The second thing is that if I have things right, we still have the individual mailing list that one can subscribe to if one wants to have the report, and all the members of both the registry and the registrar community are of course welcome to subscribe to it. So if anyone has a pressing need to read our report on the day, it’s just for them individually to subscribe to our mailing list. And I think that’s perfectly sufficient. Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Thanks, Lars. Eminently sensible. James, go ahead. JAMES GANNON: Thanks, Byron. I’m going to disagree a little bit. I won’t speak to the registries – many registry people here – but for the registrars, as this is a request from ICANN staff rather than from registrars themselves, I’d ask that not be actioned until I speak to those guys and check if that’s in line with their expectations or not. I just don’t want to change the status quo without checking if that’s okay with the actual community rather than just it coming from staff. BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you, James. Any other comments or feedback on this? TRANG NGUYEN: James, just a quick follow-up to what you mentioned. My understanding is that it’s actually the registrars that asked us to consolidate communication going to them, and this was an attempt at doing so. I don’t think that it was an initiative that was initiated on our own. But I can confirm with my Registrars Engagement Team colleagues to confirm that. But that is my understanding. BYRON HOLLAND: Yes. Could you confirm that, Trang? Because if it is being asked for by the community, I don’t have any issue with it. But if it’s something that is being generated internally, I would be less comfortable with it. So if you could clarify that for us, that would be very helpful before we take any action on it. TRANG NGUYEN: Absolutely. BYRON HOLLAND: Lars, your hand is up. Is that another question or comment? LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: I’ll just comment on that I also understood it to actually have its roots in the communities. And if that’s not the case – it does seem to be the case, but if it’s not the case – I agree that we should definitely confirm this with the community before doing it. Thank you. BYRON HOLLAND: Okay. Thanks. So let’s do that. We’ll confirm, is it community-generated? If so, no problem. If it’s administration-generated, then we will take another look at it. Any other Any Other Business? No, seeing or hearing none, I will move to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much, everybody. That was a good discussion. We’ve got lots of work to do in Abu Dhabi, and I look forward to seeing you all there. Thanks, everybody. Bye for now. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Bye. LARS JOHAN-LIMAN: Bye. JAMES GANNON: Thanks, everyone. [END OF TRANSCRIPTION] Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 15 EN Page PAGE 42 of NUMPAGES 47 Customer Standing Committee - Meeting 15 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. Q R ’ “   ¡ Ü Ý b c j z ‡ “ Ä Å ! " m y ˜ ª ³ ¿ Ö ×  † – — § è - 0 1 F G e f g w Š ™ è é ô ƒ „ Ÿ   D E † • · ¸ ï ð f g w x † úôîôèôèôèôèôèôúôßôèôèôèôßôßôßôèôèôÙúÙúèúèúèúÐúèúèúÙúÊúÊúèúÄúÄèÄèÄÊÄèÄèÄèÄèÄèÄ h: ' PJ hÙFû PJ h¬_Q h¬_Q PJ hëE§ PJ h=H¸ h=H¸ PJ haY PJ h%3 PJ h=H¸ PJ h¬_Q PJ M R S P Q i j † ‡ B C l m — ˜ ² ³ – — ç è f g ‰ Š „ d e 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=H¸ e … † g > ? q r ’ 7 † ê ë + , E F ¦ §   ¡ 6 ê ê ê Ù ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê $„@dh ¤ð ^„@a$gdaY $„@„Àôdh ¤ð ^„@`„Àôa$gd=H¸ † ‡  Ž ’ ” £ ­ × Ø U V \ ] w  ¤ ¥ & ? N r € Ý Þ û ü $ % ) * 0 1 9 : H I l m ‘ É Ó Ô § ¨ Ç È Ï Ð Õ Ö 6 7 Q R Ÿ ¿ Ï Ý ñ ò 8 9 ë û $ * , 8 F T w úôúôúôîôúôúôîôúôúôîôúôèôèôèôúôúôúôúôúôúôáØúØúØôÒúÒúÒúÒúÒúÒôÒúÒúÒîÒúÒúÒèÒèÉÒèÒèÒ h2[ h2[ PJ h2[ PJ h: ' h: ' PJ h: ' h: ' hÙFû PJ hÅWõ PJ h: ' PJ haY PJ Ow x § ¶ Þ ß Y Z ¡ « o p È Ë ó ø # $  € “ ” E F ¤ ¥ ý L M § ¨ © · × Ø Ù ç í 3! 4! n! o! Ð! Ñ! ø! " " " ¢" £" # # `# a# ˆ# ‰# Ó# á# =$ >$ % % #% $% ,% -% 5% 6% F% G% M% N% Ø% Ù% ò% ó% '&