on Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process

[Avri Doria]

On 16 Dec 2012, at 23:25, Alain Berranger wrote:

> 
> Avri said: I have skimmed thorough those, but am not sure whch taxonomy you mean.  It might be stuff that is of wider usage.  Not sure wich terms you refer to.
> 
> Alain says: I meant the list of all IANA functions users.... 
> 
> Avri listed: the IAB, IESG, and IETF, the ccNSO, TLD managers... 

Sorry

IAB - Interent Architecture Board
IESG: Internet engineering Steering Group
IETF - Interent Engineering Task Force

Very roughly:

The IESG  is composed of the people who 'supervise' that various technical areas within the IETF, which is composed of Working Groups working on various protocols.  These protocol mostly all contain registries of code that are used to control the behavior of the protocols.  IANA maintains these registries.

The IAB is part of ISOC that, among other things, gves architecture advice to the IETF and supervice the IRTF, Interent Research Task Force.

The list was not mine, it was form the document under review.  I was quoting.  quess I forgot the quotation marks.  will fix that.

> 
> Alain says: I was wondering it that was the complete list...?

Well is says "including", so not it is not complete.  Nonetheless I though it might be worth making reference toa few  others.

avri


> 
> Alain
> 
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:07, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Avri,
> >
> > Is the IANA functions users' taxonomy defined in the IANA/ICANN contract and/or its numerous Amendments (sorry! I have not read all those documents)?
> 
> I have skimmed thorough those, but am not sure whch taxonomy you mean.  It might be stuff that is of wider usage.  Not sure wich terms you refer to.
> 
> >
> > As new gTLDs get approved, would they not come under the category TLD managers?
> 
> I assume so.
> 
> >
> > Does the Ombudsman have a track record of resolving complaints, particularly those involving technical complexities? How can one judge that?
> 
> good question.  I am sure he can be asked, but that would be a good thing to add to the list fo questions that get asked before  a revision of the process is advocated.  I will add that o my list.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > I am planning to file a comment on Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process
> >
> > https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/iana-complaint-resolution-27nov12-en.htm
> >
> > Below are my first thoughts.  As this is due by 18th December I will not have time to verify this as a NCUC or a NCSG comment before submission and will therefore submit as an individual.
> >
> > However, I do have enough time to gather any opinions from the NCSG- DIscuss list before I submit on the 18th.  If I change it based on consultations wit the list, I will mention that in the submission.
> >
> > And, if either the NCUC, NPOC or NCSG wish to endorse the comment I send in, or wishes to add/disagree with it, they can do so as part of the reply period.  This is one handy aspect of the 2 stage process that we can use.  If last minute commenters, as I so often am, cannot get C/SG endorsement before submission, the reply period offers the C/SG the time to comment on the comment.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > ----
> >
> > The complaint resolution process appears to be adequate.  Some specific comments on the document::
> >
> >
> > 1. Re:
> > "
> > Ideally, the escalation process would be initiated by the individuals appointed by the leaders of the various organizations that the IANA functions directly serve, including > Thanks Avri,
> >
> > Is the IANA functions users' taxonomy defined in the IANA/ICANN contract and/or its numerous Amendments (sorry! I have not read all those documents)?
> 
> I have skimmed thorough those, but am not sure whch taxonomy you mean.  It might be stuff that is of wider usage.  Not sure wich terms you refer to,
> > "
> >
> > A. Does this process not also apply to gTLDs.  If so, could the GNSO, or one of its stakeholder groups, initiate a complaint?  This may be very relevant during the upcoming period when there is a growth in the number of new gTLDs requiring IANA services.  If this is the case, perhaps a specific mention of the GNSO and its constituencies is warranted.
> > B. Why would a complaint from a registrant or Internet user not be appropriate if it related to a relevant IANA activity?
> > C. Could a complaint come from the ALAC, in regard to problems that may be suffered by the At-large users of the Internet, or from the GAC or its members related to issues related to governments?
> > C.  Could a complaint come from individual protocol authors or implementors who request code points that do not need to be approved by the  IETF processes before assignment.
> >
> > 2. Re:
> > "
> > As the final level of escalation (or at any time the requester feels this escalation procedure is not being followed or is not effective),
> > "
> >
> > I think it would be good to bring out that fact that the Ombudsman is a step that can be taken at any point in the process, as oppose to including that fact as a parenthetical.   Consider mentioning the Ombudsman at the topic of this section as well as including it as the last step.
> >
> >
> > Specific Answer to the questions of the consultation:
> >
> > The efficacy of the process should be measured and reviewed.  It is only worth fixing or replacing the process with another process if it can be shown that this process has not been effective.
> >
> > Questions that might be asked in a review:
> >
> > - How many complaints have been escalated?
> > - How many complaints, if any, have fallen through the cracks or exceeding a reasonable time frame?
> > - What sort of complaints, if any have reached the ombudsman and on what frequency?
> > - To what degree are those who filed complaints satisfied with the service they received?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> > Skype: alain.berranger
> >
> >
> > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
> 
> 
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
>