[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM | 20 May 2020 (12:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

hello everyone,

Kindly find some high-level notes and the action items from today’s ccPDP3-RM Working Group meeting.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken


ACTION ITEMS


Action item #1:

Group members are encouraged to review the source material, especially the Framework of Interpretation, and RFC591. See doc on https://community.icann.org/x/d4XsBw




NOTES


  1.  Welcome and Roll Call


In the interest of time, there will be no roll call.  Apologies received from Bernie and Bart (Jaap will be late).  As a reminder, calls are recorded and transcribed; recordings/transcripts posted on the public wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/d4XsBw


2.                   Administrative Announcements (if any)


None from the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat.

Apologies from Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte.


3.                   3-step approach to identify decisions that should be subject to review


proposed presentation schedule for the next meetings

  *   presentation on reconsideration and CEP
  *   Ombudsman procedure
  *   Focused session on IRP itself


Overview current appeals mechanisms in the ICANN sphere.

Appeals processes: including an update in future call by Beck Burr (ICANN Board), Sam Eisner


Proposed path, towards the proposed policy.

  *   Step 1: IANA staff will present in near future: overview delegation and transfer process
  *   Step 2: are we in scope for the PDP? The bylaws?
  *   Step 3: questions to be addressed by the WG.

Overview of the background material. Various documents the group members are strongly encouraged to become familiar with.


Patricio: assumption “who has a standing to ask for a review” We are assuming that it is the effective ccTLD manager. That should perhaps be made explicit. In the past, we saw IANA receiving requests for redelegation from third parties. IANA analysed, and perhaps dismissed. Would the 3rd party have a standing to ask for a review?


Eberhard: the problem is when a 3rd party wants to make a review about a decision made regarding another party. Recourse for a decision that affects the entity itself. Can 3rd parties review decisions about another party?


Patricio: understands what Eberhard says, but that assumes that in every decision only 1 party is affected. That may not be true.  E.g. complainant and the current manager. Either of those 2 parties have a standing?


Allan: This is a broad question that we need to deal with in our final doc. Regardless of the outcome in the specific example by Patricio. We need to deal with the question of who has standing. Have a more considered discussion.


Eberhard: if somebody applies for substantial misconduct, the applicant can apply for review. Incumbent ccTLD managers can apply, if they were indeed deemed to have done substantial misconduct. We need to carefully select what cases are reviewable. Construct exhaustive scenarios in the stress-testing.


Final aim: fill out the table with the decisions, who takes the decision?  oversight by? and subject to review?  Any comments on this proposed framework? None.


Action item #1:

Group members are encouraged to review the source material, especially the Framework of Interpretation, and RFC591


4.                   Action Items


None


5.                   AOB


None


6.                   Next Meetings:


a.      3 June 2020 (20:00 UTC)

b.      17 June 2020 (04:00 UTC)

c.       1 July 2020

d.      15 July 2020




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/20200520/c3decc0a/attachment-0001.html>