[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP on Review Mechanism | 29 July 2020 | 04:00 UTC

Mon Aug 10 23:53:07 UTC 2020

Dear ccPDP-RM Working Group,

Per action item #2, please find the attached document regarding the highlighted decisions in Draft RoE v1.6. We look forward to answering any additional questions you may have.

Kind regards,

Selina Harrington
Lead IANA Services Specialist

From: Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Naela Sarras <naela.sarras at iana.org>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:34 AM
To: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>, "ccpdp-rm at icann.org" <ccpdp-rm at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP on Review Mechanism | 29 July 2020 | 04:00 UTC

Hi Joke,

Can you please share Draft RoE v1.6 (or whichever is the latest) of the document on this list so we can work on action item #2 below?

Thank you,
Naela

Naela Sarras
Director, IANA Operations
ICANN

From: Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 9:57 PM
To: "ccpdp-rm at icann.org" <ccpdp-rm at icann.org>
Subject: [Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP on Review Mechanism | 29 July 2020 | 04:00 UTC

Hello all,

Please find included below the action items and high level notes from today’s ccPDP3-RM meeting, held on 29 July at 04:00 UTC. all calls are recorded; recordings posted on the public wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/mgR1C

Best regards.

Joke Braeken

ACTION ITEMS

Action item #1: staff to send Eberhard some written text regarding an addition (recommendation from FOI that the decision of revocation should be subject to review), to be added by Eberhard to the revised version of the document

Action item #2: PTI staff to comment on Draft RoE v1.6 via the mailing list

NOTES

  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.

In the interest of time, there will be no roll call.  Apologies have been received from Vanda Scartezini. As a reminder, all calls are recorded; recordings posted on the public wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/mgR1C

2.                   Administrative announcements

a.                   ccPDP Retirement Public Comments

call on 6th August at 17:00 UTC.

Group to review the public comments. Staff will provide a summary of the comments, by subject manner.  ccPDP3-RM WG members are invited to attend the ccPDP3-RET WG meeting.

Participation from ICANN legal: name of the person joining will be communicated shortly.

4.                   Identify decision points table – next steps

Eberhard presenting his viewpoints. Draft RoE v1.6.

  *   Critique regarding speed of the WG discarded: more focused on the quality of the product.
  *   Document written by Bart, reviewed by Eberhard. Changed some typos, tenses.
  *   Based on PTI presentation, provided by Kim Davies

Page 7.

  *   Naela

For both of the yellow items, those items are not mandatory but if included are tested for
.

Not everything is expected to work at the beginning of the process, but at the time they are in the root zone, everything is expected to be working.

Page 7, 8, 9.

  *   Eberhard

  *   Legal requirements: US or host country?
  *   How is technical competence tested? (see .ss case)
  *   Was never mandatory to have a registration policy

  *   Bart

To be included: recommendation from FOI that the decision of revocation should be subject to review

Action item #1: staff to send Eberhard some written text regarding an addition (recommendation from FOI that the decision of revocation should be subject to review), to be added by Eberhard to the revised version of the document

Action item #2: PTI staff to comment on Draft RoE v1.6 via the mailing list

Allan:

if a decision is excluded from this review mechanism, can this decision still be subject to another review mechanism?

Stephen:

when US oversight was removed, the CCWG excluded ccTLDs from all review mechanisms, at request of the ccTLDs. Answer therefore is no.

Eberhard:

other review mechanisms do not apply to delegate, transfer, revocation. Council decisions might be subject to review.  Review mechanism should be the one we develop

Bart:

According to the Framework of Interpretation working group the term “Revocation” (section 3.5 of RFC1591) refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from an incumbent manager .

Further section 4.8. of the FoI.  Note: The FOI WG believes it is consistent with RFC1591 (section 3.4) and the duty to act fairly to recognize the manager has the right to appeal a notice of revocation by the IANA Operator to an independent body.

Nigel:

Accountability mechanisms refer to any board or staff (in)action that have an effect on the complainant. What Allan said needs to be explored more in detail.

Allan:

Concerns: uneven playfield. There could be a comparable situation with a gTLD where a certain aspect is subject to a review, and a ccTLD would not have the same opportunity. Scope of the review to be further explored.

Eberhard:

Whatever PTI staff does, goes into accountability review. Most of gTLD issues arise from contracts.

If we identify decisions that should be subject to review, they should cover what is current, but leave some options for future developments

Nigel:

ccTLDs do not have contracts: that is partially correct. 2 or 3 ccTLDs have contracted to ICANN. ICANN ought to revise and streamline it. We should design a mechanism that should be applied to all ccTLDs.

Eberhard:

.jp, .ke, au. We should be mindful. They should not be the focus of our deliberations.

Bart:

There are still 8 `sponsorship` Agreements and 7 MoU. over 50 exchange of letters

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en__;!!PtGJab4!sphdA2_QOsufFIf1MBnSsCLnSVMXLZjk44cLJj5M0hP79KgeUx9lzXOV_lQdcGtvqm4IKT0$>

Patricio:

Do we want to go into finer granularity? Any action or inaction that …. Sounds like the right level of detail. If we say that actions or inactions from PTI that firmly reject a ccTLD for technical reasons should be subject to review: That would be sufficient. We do not need to specify the details, such as “if a URL does not work”

Bart:

Note that this follows the track we have used regarding understanding the decision points of understanding the retirement process. It was clear for staff that this is too detailed, however it is an easier way to identify the decision points that are relevant. This table is used to identify decision points that should be subject to a review

We should send a complete table, so that people have a sense of where we end up.

5.                   Next meetings

12 August (12:00 UTC)

26 August (20:00 UTC)

5.                   AOB

None

6.                   Closure

Thank you very much for attending. Bye all.

Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/ccNSO__;!!PtGJab4!sphdA2_QOsufFIf1MBnSsCLnSVMXLZjk44cLJj5M0hP79KgeUx9lzXOV_lQdcGtv5dRi1S0$>
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/ccnso/__;!!PtGJab4!sphdA2_QOsufFIf1MBnSsCLnSVMXLZjk44cLJj5M0hP79KgeUx9lzXOV_lQdcGtvvfUFit4$>
http://ccnso.icann.org [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ccnso.icann.org__;!!PtGJab4!sphdA2_QOsufFIf1MBnSsCLnSVMXLZjk44cLJj5M0hP79KgeUx9lzXOV_lQdcGtvW93nznc$>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20200810/f8cb5268/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PTI Comments - Draft RoE v1.6.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34392 bytes
Desc: PTI Comments - Draft RoE v1.6.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20200810/f8cb5268/PTIComments-DraftRoEv1.6-0001.pdf>