[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group | 18 November 2020 (13:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Hello everyone.

Please find some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP3-RM-meeting, held on 18 November 2020 (13:00 UTC)

Thank you.

Best regards.

Joke Braeken



  1.  Welcome and roll call


Welcome by Stephen Deerhake

In the interest of time, there will be no roll call.   Apologies:  Svitlana Tkechenko, Eberhard Lisse (arrived few minutes late).  As a reminder, all calls are recorded and transcribed; recordings/transcripts will be posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/ggjQC).


2.                  Administrative announcements, if any


None


3.                  Continue discussion: revised table/spreadsheet – Bernie will circulate


ICANN legal offered help. Pleased about Bernard’s involvement. Progress made so far: means that we can finish the 1st part probably before the end of the calendar year.  Highlighted in yellow: changes with respect to previous version


  *   delegation


Has PTI (FO?) ever refused a delegation request?

Eberhard: technically not refused, but .um was a case. Applied, delegated, and then US gvt asked to undelegate.

Bernard: edge case. Reality: if there is an official refusal, ever, one have to make sure that IANA formally notifies the applicant. The applicant, 30 days after the notice, can appeal.

The decision point: ICANN Board minutes as it gets applied. This means that even if the Board approves it, they usually went quick to include it in the root.

Eberhard: 2 conflicting applicants? Then IANA asked to sort it out among themselves.

Separate scenario raised by Eberhard (partial notes)

Not problem of the LIC. if IFO says to sort it out among themselves, we cannot leave it in limbo. Deadline?

Bernard: we can come back to it. Understands the situation. Problem would be to ask IANA to make a decision which gvt has a say over the LIC. UN has a WG on this. Strict. When they do not have a decision, it is big. There are good reasons for it.

Vanda: we cannot interfere in the diplomatic issues not related to us. Who possesses this piece of land? Understands Eberhard issue. Not for us to put our hands on that.

Bernard: if another gvt is appealing the decision, already difficult. There is one point on the second line: the losing applicant. Do we want to put something in there? Minimum requirements? Timeline? To avoid poor applications. If we don’t do anything, someone could see that a delegation could be on a board papert to be approved, and submit a last minute application. To be avoided.


  *   transfer


2 parties. If PTI decides the transaction is ok, the only people who can appeal are the applicants, if it is rejected

Patricio: scenario where the domain is going to be transferred. One party could complain it was given to someone else, and not to them?

Eberhard: does not think so. Transfer is from one party to another. Incumbent manager, and the one the incumbent manager agrees to. It is not up to PTI to determine to whom it is being transferred

Eberhard: if someone gives it up, it would probably go to the delegation of a new ccTLD process. Also interesting if a country splits up in several parts. New domains in that case. Current manager makes the decision, and then the application would come from the current manager and the new proposed manager. Corner case patricio described is not likely to happen

Bart: to be added to the list of stress testing. The corner cases are good for testing.


  *   Retirement


Column G. here we talk about whether a ccTLD is going to exist a little longer, or a little less longer. Do we need a full appeal? Is IFO review and mediation perhaps sufficient? For consideration by the group.

Lightweight for a full appeals process.


  *   Revocation


Eberhard: .um was a revocation. .ki when given to current management, was not consented. Similar situation for .au

Eberhard: good examples.

If someone was revoked, would the board approve this or not? Current manager would need to be advised, and would fall in a timeframe for appealing the decision. Manager would be eligible for PTI review. All appeals mechanism to be exhausted before they go ahead. A revocation is not a retirement. Removing it from the current manager and transferring it to another one. Removing part can be appealed. Can the “transfer” to the new manager be appealed?

Eberhard: revocation separate from ensuing delegation. It is not a transfer. It is separate. This can be one to many.

Bernard: technically a delegation of new ccTLD?

Eberhard does not agree


4.                  Next meetings


2 December 2020 (21 UTC)

16 December 2020 (5 UTC)


5.                  AOB


6.                  Closure


Thank you all.


Bye.



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/20201118/dd649b2d/attachment-0001.html>