[Ccpdp-rm] Notes: ccPDP on Review Mechanism Working Group | Wed, 6 May 2020 (6 am UTC)

Wed May 6 07:07:01 UTC 2020

Hello everyone,

Please find included below some high-level notes as taken during today’s ccPDP3-RM meeting, held on Wed, 6 May 2020 (06:00 AM UTC)

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

NOTES

  1.  Welcome and roll-call

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.

Apologies by Patricio Poblete, Vanda Scartezini, Rocio de la Fuente, Peter Koch

Calls are recorded and transcribed – recording/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/boXsBw

2.                   Administrative Items (if any)

Interim Paper published: The ccNSO Policy Development Process 3 (PDP3) working group, is seeking input and feed-back from the broader community on its proposed process to retire ccTLDs, when the country code is removed from list of country codes in the ISO 3166 standard.

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccnso-pdp3-retire-cctlds-2020-05-05-en

Close date: 10 Jul 2020 23:59 UTC

a.                   Call rotation review

Preference for an 8h rotation, option 3 (see doodle poll)

04:00 UTC, 12:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC

Nick: option 3 is fine for US, EU. But there is a minority for whom the rotation is not good.

The greatest good for the greatest number?

Group agrees to move forward with option 3. Can be revised at a later date, if needed.

3.                   Review of webinars

Recent webinars by ccPDP3-ret Interim Paper.

Any comments regarding things that went well? Things that could be improved?

Nick: not interactive, participative enough.

Barrack, Irinia and Allen felt it went well. appreciated the polling.

4.                   Work Items

Circulated previously.

  *   Overview existing procedures
  *   Work items identified in the Issues Report and underlying charter, and paper by drafting group

Group to identify how to move forward. Suggestion is to do things in parallel. Informing about scope/background of the procedures, and in parallel start with the things identified in the issue report.

Bernard: decisions by ICANN Board, how to go against them.

CEP - IRP. If they do not go through CEP, there are no costs to the plaintiff (partial notes, apologies).

IRP is managed by an independent body. Qualified legal practitioners which are panelists (1 to 3). They hear the case. Close to a legal trial, a formal legal proceeding.  Once the IRP takes a decision on a case, ICANN is bound to respect that decision. Body of rules and documentations from ICANN for the panel.  E.g. based on bylaws, contracts etc. The body of rules which apply (RFC591) vs legal text: fuzzy. Might be hard for an IRP-like process to work with those. IRP’s are very expensive. Independent of a particular country. Rules that we have are difficult for legal practitioners

Eberhard: good things that it is expensive. Decisions will be made carefully. Prior resources before going to an expensive procedure. E.g. Community Engagement Programme. Retired high court judges anglophone countries.

Bernard: The set-up costs of an IRP are monumental.  If you go for the ICANN one, everything is there and provided.

Eberhard: careful review of panel and panel selection. Use the same mechanism? Use the same people on the panel?

Allan: consider using the existing IRP with some tweaks. We need a detailed briefing on how the current IRP will work.  We may wish to have a specialised person, qualified, with knowledge of the ccTLD community, RFC 591.

Bernard: the IRP is up and running. Modifications needed as part of Accountability WS1 and WS2. IRP needed to be reviewed. No time as part of those processes to work out the details. On the panelists: the idea is to have a standing roster of panelists who will be specifically only available for ICANN cases. They will be trained on the mechanics of the DNS system. Adding cc-specific items to the training should not be a problem. Community was asked for input on the selection of the panelists. People asked to submit their candidacy.

Stephen: Should the group consider an IRP?

Bart: suggestion is to first start with an in depth presentation about IRP. Some of the points raised are some of the questions the WG will need to address. E.g. structure of a review mechanism. 3 options: use this one, another existing one, develop a new one.

Maarten: Looking at the IRP seems to make sense. With regard to panelists, I would like to consider the idea that the panelist should be nationals of the country the ccTLD is related to and the applicable law should be of that country

Eberhard: National Law has nothing to do with any decisions by PTI/ICANN and I don’t think limiting the choice of panelists for the ccTLD Manager is counterproductive. costs are ICANN’s problem, and it has vastly more resources than the average ccTLD Manager has.

Maarten: National law is quite relevant in the case of any discussions with regard to delegation, redelegation, etc.of .nl. May be different for other ccTLDs.

Eberhard: no. We are making ICANN policy, and as much as I would like ICANN to be subject to 253 different jurisdictions, ICANN is never going to agree to this.

RFC 1591/FoI avoids this issue and I don’t think we can introduce it de novo.

Maarten: Point is that we now seem to structure it as a discussion between a TLD manager and ICANN while RFC 1591 speaks about discussions between significantly interested parties

Bart: proposed presentation schedule for the next meetings

  *   In 2 weeks: presentation on reconsideration and CEP
  *   In 4 weeks: Ombudsman procedure
  *   In 6 weeks: Focused session on IRP itself

Bernard: schedule them as early as possible. ICANN68 is approaching.

Bart: in case someone is unable to attend, we defer to the next meeting. High-level schedule remains as suggested.

Bart: Work Items v1.7

Section 2.1.1. Scope of the review mechanism

4 core areas for discussion

Comments added by Bart: understand the decision or actions that should be subject to the RM. Some of the documents are not very clear on the decisions from a legal point of view. If you look at the decisions that should be subject to a review mechanism.

Only in FOI there is a section on revocation, that alludes to a potential review mechanism.  Identify the decisions that you propose to be subject to RM.: delegation, transfer, revocation.

Firstly, revisit the different procedures.

Second part: whose decisions? Different parties involved. E.g.

  *   Delegations: the significantly interested parties (SIP), PTI, ICANN Board, potential ccTLD manager
  *   Transfers: incumbent and proposed ccTLD managers, SIP, ICANN Board, PTI.

This WG should identify whose decisions or actions should be subject to a review.

In the next meeting, a suggestion is to start looking into the delegation process. Use the method by ccPDP3-ret WG, to identify decisions that should be subject to. In parallel with the first presentation.

5.                   AOB

none

6.                   Next meetings

                20 May 2020 | 12 UTC

                3 June 2020

                17 June 2020

                1 July 2020

                15 July 2020

7.                   Closure

Thank you 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
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/20200506/d8648446/attachment-0001.html>