[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | ccPDP3 -RM | 12 August 2020 (12:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Dear All,

Please find included below the notes and actions items from today’s ccPDP-RM meeting.
Recordings are posted on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/x/owR1C

Best regards,

Joke


ACTION ITEMS

Action #1:
ccNSO support staff to re-circulate PTI presentation on complaints procedure.

Action item #2:
Staff to circulate proposed meetings by ccPDP3-RM until mid November.

NOTES


  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.

2.                  Administrative announcements, if any

ccPDP3-ret met for the first time last week, after the recent closure of the public comment period. Comments were reviewed at a high level via the staff report. No major changes needed most likely.
Group will put together a response to the comments received

3.                  Action items

Items in yellow.
Selina (PTI) submitted comments to the mailing list.

4.                  Decision points

V1.6.
Previous meeting: discussion around items on the decision list. Per table. Eberhard highlighted some of them (in yellow). This is Eberhard’s version of the previous document.

Clarifications provided by PTI on the mailing list.


  *   Is DNSSEC set up correctly?

Jaap: these tests, or other tests when are they conducted?
Selina: only in case of change request
Jaap: you do not notice things are broken, when there are no change requests
Peter: Who has the change-control over the tests?  Technical checks are defined by PTI/IANA with a certain amount of community involvement. For gTLD pre-delegation checks, there are different conditions. Simply getting the history straight. Not policy, part of implementing the policy
Selina: need to verify with Kim

V1.6
Identify decisions subject to the Review Mechanism. The FOI advised to make one decision subject to review: Board decision with respect to revocation of a ccTLD.
ccPDP3-ret identified another one: decision on extension of the removal. Decision to remove the ccTLD from the root zone file was not subject to the review mechanism, according to ccPDP3-ret.

We listed all the decisions PTI makes.  Not all decisions need to be subject to the review. Some of these decisions are very technical, and not policy related.

All decisions, if they affect some of the actions of a ccTLD, are subject to a recourse via the complaints procedure.
Selina confirmed.
Bart presumes that is the case for all evaluations undertaken by PTI.
Selina confirmed

Maarten: a complaint procedure works only for the requestor?
Bart: the subjected ccTLD manager.

Table 4:

  *   oversight by Board on the decisions undertaken here. There is oversight on PTI with respect to these decisions.
  *   Which of these decisions should be subject to the review mechanism?
Stephen: decision 1.
Allan: everything should be subject to review. Not to be parsed individually.
Nick: agrees with Allan. Not to narrowly prescribe things.
Bernie: IRP is in some ways similar. Anybody can make a claim. The body that reviews the action makes a determination versus the appropriateness of the claim
Maarten: what determines when a review can start?
Allan: we should go more in depth regarding the review mechanism itself
Bart: should every decision in every stage of delegation/transfer be subject to review? Or is it a cause for review?
Bernie: an IRP cannot be launched before the Board has made a decision. Few triggering events. For IRP, this is the decision by the Board. Anything in the bylaws can be looked at in support of that decision. We may have few instances which can launch a formal appeal. We have not defined the mechanism yet, but if it looks like an IRP, it is a long and expensive process.
Bart: do we start here, or at the end?
Nick : interesting examples of the complaints process
Bart: these are the decisions we know of, and we have a starting point
Nick: also a failure to grant an application is within scope
Allan: does not recall the outcome of the complaints process. What is the end point? Maybe that is the point of departure for the other decisions. If there still is a dispute, then it is available.
Bart/Selina: CEO, or option to go to ombudsman.

Action #1:
ccNSO support staff to re-circulate PTI presentation on complaints procedure.

Patricio: try to identify the formal PTI decisions that are subject to review, and distinguish them from the reasons for taking that decision.  Our procedure should stand in time. If there is a new check added, that should not imply a need to amend our produce.
Bart: PTI granted a transfer, although the incumbent is opposed?
Patricio: yes. Also subject to review. Without the need to open a review window every step on the way. Open it at the end. Cost would be PTI either granting or denying the request.
Bart: is it the PTI decision? Or the decision by the ICANN Board of Directors? That is the formal, public decision point
Patricio: independent of the body that made the decision. If it affects the ccTLD manager
Allan: we need a review mechanism that national governments can access, if they feel aggrieved.

a.                  Complete table

5.                  AOB

None

6.                  Next meetings

26 August 2020 (20:00 UTC)
9 September 2020 (04:00 UTC)
23 September 2020 (12:00 UTC)

Stephen: will we meet as part of ICANN69?
Bart: suggestion is we will continue our schedule, but avoid overlap with SO/AC internal week (the week prior to AGM) and the AGM week. We will reconvene early November.

Action item #2:
Staff to circulate proposed meetings by ccPDP3-RM until mid November.

4.                  Closure

Thank you all. Bye.

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

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
http://ccnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20200812/f2da453f/attachment-0001.html>