[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM WG | 15 July 2020 (20:00 UTC)

Wed Jul 15 21:00:22 UTC 2020

Dear All,

Please find included below the notes from today’s ccPDP3-RM meeting held on Wed, 15 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome all by Chair Stephen Deerhake.  Apologies:  Nick Wenban-Smith, Naela Sarras. All calls are recorded and recordings posted on the public wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/gIXsBw.

2.                  Administrative announcements, if any

a.                  ICANN Legal as observer

Thanks to ICANN legal and Becky Burr, and Amy Stathos, for their contributions to the previous meeting.
The WG could benefit occasionally from the input by ICANN legal, chair would welcome ICANN legal joining formally the WG as observer

     *   ccPDP on Retirement Public Comments

Public comments closed on 10 July. 5 comments received from the community. (partial) overlap between the membership of ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP3-ret.
i.Proposed call on Thu, 6 August 2020
ii.Doodle poll to follow
A calendar invite will be sent to both groups.

3.                  Identify decision points

Document shown in the zoom room was not circulated yet to the group. Was discussed however with Eberhard and Stephen. What would be the next steps? What would be valuable for this group?
PTI gave a presentation on the main steps of the delegation and transfer process. 4 major steps (consent and regulatory check were combined. Final step: implementation, which is beyond the scope of this WG)
How to identify decisions to be subject to the mechanism? First go through the process of the IFO, identify the points of decision. PTI takes the steps and ICANN BoD takes the final decision. Which decisions should be subject to a review?

Step 1: (notes not complete)
Step 2: which decisions are within scope of the policy on RM?
Step 3: WG advised to discuss the following questions

  *   Who takes the decision?
  *   Who provides oversight?
  *   Which decisions should be subject to a review mechanism?

>>>> Table 1:   various steps in the process.

Decision, description, who takes the decision, is there oversight and review?

Eberhard suggests a brainstorming process regarding the decisions that could be subject to the review. Bart agrees, suggests using zoom facilities in the future.
Bart presents a substantive overview, to kick off the discussion.

Bart suggests adding another column, since we also touch upon complaints procedures and processes. Add whether a decision identified is subject to the complaint process, or should be subject to the PTI complaint process. Bernie: supports this. (see ICANN’s IRP)

  1.  Initial evaluation, initial checks. Do you meet the criteria? That is already a decision. Decision whether you enter the process or not.
  2.  Is the string eligible for delegation?
  3.  etc

>>>> Table 2:  technical checks.

>>>> Table 3: consent/regulatory check

From FoI work.

>>>> Table 4: Evaluation and Findings

Item number 1: see IANA reports. Based on checks and decisions in the previous phases.
Item number 2: BoD decision.

ACTION ITEM #1
Staff to include in the updated version:
·         Additional column about complaints
·         2 additional tables: firstly, regarding revocation by FoI, secondly regarding the work of the retirement WG.

Any questions? Enough basis for online work?

Eberhard is concerned about second guessing decisions on a lower level. Rather into reviewing outcomes. Structure: what decisions are taken, in which order? Feels ambivalent about all of this. Eberhard prefers not to “micromanage” IFO internal processes

Bernard: understand Eberhard’s point on lower level discussions. Aim is to understand what those are.
Allan: discussion on IRP. Suggestion to look at IRP as a template for the mechanism we want to do. What adjustments do we want to make to it? Once we have that done, come back to the question of the scope. Which decisions/actions/claims are captured by this parallel mechanism.
Bart: built upon presentation from ICANN legal is an option, but there is a risk we go off track. The current proposed approach allows you to focus more.
Review why ccTLDs were initially opposed. There were also strong arguments in the public comments on the initial proposals.
Bernie: we might be better served by the current approach. What are we trying to find an appeals mechanism for? The core requirement of the IRP has the ICANN BoD to follow the bylaws. We may be limiting ourselves. With ccTLDs, life is different. It makes more sense to look at the decision points, where we want to ensure an appeal mechanism is in place. There may be more than 1 appeals mechanism.
Eberhard: do not micromanage IFO processes. The more detailed it gets, the more difficult it gets for IFO to change internal processes. We need to look at milestones. We should not become prescriptive.
Bart: agrees. To get to that point, if you start with the details, at least you made a conscious effort to exclude certain things, for the reasons stated before.
Eberhard: agrees. He does not have an issue with the process. Just a warning.

Bart: currently no strong objection to go down this path.  This was a first reading, doc was not circulated previously. Document will be circulated with the group, with the edits as specified under action item 1.
We will also add a link to the documentation the retirement WG has been using.

4.                  Action Items

No action items from previous meeting. From today’s meeting:

ACTION ITEM #1
Staff to include in the updated version:
·         Additional column about complaints
·         2 additional tables: firstly, regarding revocation by FoI, secondly regarding the work of the retirement WG.

5.                  AOB

none

6.                  Next meetings

Wed, 29 July 2020 (04:00 UTC) – Most likely 90 min, if we use breakout rooms
Wed, 12 August 2020 (12:00 UTC) - confirmed
Wed, 26 August 2020 (20:00 UTC) - confirmed

5.                  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/20200715/3343e88d/attachment-0001.html>