[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 RM WG | 2 December 2020 (21:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Dear All,


Below are the high-level notes from today’s ccPDP-RM meeting, held on 2 December at 21 UTC.



Best regards,



Joke Braeken






  1.  Welcome and roll call


Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.  Thanks all for participating. Apology from Nigel Roberts and Vanda Scartezini.  Recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/JI3zC


2.                   Administrative announcements, if any


None


3.                   Continue discussion: revised table/spreadsheet


Sam Eisner is pleased with the work so far. She is happy to join a meeting in January to start discussing options.

=> line 1

If there is a revocation, using same lines for redelegation

Unclear how that would work if there is more than one applicant.

We may need to iron out with PTI how that would work

Eberhard: country established. Cctld .ss given by iso. PTI never said “we are not going to delegate that”

.um was delegated and removed based on instructions from US government. Other example was mentioned.

Kim: .um was removed based on request from university from southern california

Eberhard disagrees

Allan: we explored the situation where PTI refuses because of insufficient information.


=> line 2

Bernie added the column “other mechanisms”

  *   Ombuds response: Bernie will inform group of the response
  *   Reconsideration request
  *   Mediation

Issue listed in last column. PTI could say the application is deficient. Is that a refusal?

Bart: is the PTI escalation procedure part of the other mechanisms?

Kim: the escalation procedures generally link to performance problems. You could categorise this as such. Unsure. It was not the intent to be used for this purpose. Complaint resolution process states it will be escalated. Just a commitment that this is how we do things. It is not in the procedures, contracts, bylaws or similar.

Bernie: useful to include

Eberhard: there must be some form of recourse if PTI says it is deficient

If they get a sense that a delegation will be approved by the Board (see Board Agenda), someone could appeal and apply and delay the delegation. Timeline for applications?

Eberhard: say that new applications will not be accepted for pending applications. Western Sahara: 2 applications with equal support. In that case both sides could appeal.

Bernie: see previous point. If an application is incomplete, one or both could appeal that

Timeline for which people can apply for a ccTLD?

Eberhard: just wants to avoid the gaming

Bernie: fair notice is important. 30 day notice that applications will be closing.

Eberhard: process needs to end somehow.

Bart: be careful not to open the delegation process as such. That is out of scope.

Eberhard: we should only deal with appeal mechanisms. And make recommendations to PTI if needed. Stresstest

Kim: supports what was said. Dealing with a case right now. One application is near finish line. Second competing application to come in. Where to draw the line? If the first one is successful, what does that do with the second one?

Stephen: please take notes. Useful for our stress testing

Maarten: what is the first moment that an application for a delegation becomes public?

Kim: monthly reporting contains the list of delegation requests.

Bernie: will discuss with Kim where PTI escalation procedure could apply through the table. Does the Board approve a transfer?

Kim: yes, the board “approves”. Same process, with some additions


=> transfer

No questions

Bart: consent is important in case of a transfer. There are some conditions. How do you deal with duresse, after the facts? Is there something fishy? Stress test.

Bernie: good point. The appeal that a transfer was consented.

Eberhard: .ng was transferred from a dead person to a dead purson

Bernie: issue with the delegation process, not with the appeals. Interesting case for a stress test


=> retirement

Kim: preference not to involve the board. Prior to the act of removing it from the root zone, have some sort of board review and consideration by the Board


=> revocation

Bernie: Assumes those will also go to the board?

Kim: yes. Consistent with past practice.

Bernie: we list all these mechanisms, because we need to talk about totalling. Timeframe before anything happens to appeal a decision. Someone who wishes to appeal should not be penalised by the 30 days, because they are using one of the other options

Eberhard: prescription is what it is called in Namibia. Interrupt the 30 days when there is another mechanism in use

Bernie: IDN string


4.                   Next meetings


16 December – 05:00 UTC

06 January – 13:00 UTC | Suggestion to defer to a week later. Start the second week. Then continue the bi-weekly rotation.



13 January – 13:00 UTC

27 January – 21:00 UTC


5.                   AOB


None


6.                   Closure


Thank you all


Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20201202/edc99dde/attachment-0001.html>