[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ICANN69 | ccPDP3-ret | 15 October 2020 (14 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Hello everyone,

Please find included below some high-level notes from the ccPDP3-retirement WG, held at ICANN69 on 15 October 2020 at 14 UTC.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken


Welcome by Stephen Deerhake, ccPDP3-WG chair.
Apology by Nigel Roberts


  1.  Status update

gives an overview of what has been done to date by the ccPDP3 Working Group on the retirement of ccTLDs. See slide deck shared in zoom room.

Poll to the audience: do you support the proposed policy document for retirement process of ccTLDs?
Yes: 93%
No: 7 % (corresponds to 1 person). Sven Echternach wrote in the chat that he casted a no-vote in error and asks to void.
Conclusion: all on this webinar, that casted their vote, are in support of the proposed policy.


  1.  Carve out

Overview provided by Bart Boswinkel. Originally there needed to be a policy on the retirement of ccTLDs. Need for that policy was identified by a previous WG. Second issue: the need for a review mechanism. (Part 2 ccPDP3 WG)
Discussions around iana stewardship proposal. Still work in progress: independent review process. At the time it was decided to include the decisions on delegation etc. Many ccTLDs were mot happy with the inclusion. They developed the need to identify a policy in this area. Rfc5091. Question to council in 2017 whether or not to combine this in 1 PDP. Review mechanism should apply to the retirement, but there was no such policy. So, what should come first? Discussion by council and community on how to run this.
Decision to combine both topics in 1 PDP. To avoid one major complication: the need to review the other PDP, before one part was completed prior to the other one. Other reasons were less urgent: availability to run 2 parallel PDP’s. The number of volunteers needed is a high burden on the ccTLD managers.  Also high burden on the Council and the members: only 1 decision needed on the total package. The idea was to start with the retirement, since it would create the basis for the review mechanism.
Part 1 is completed: ready for final decision and seek council and member support for the process. Expectation is that ccpdp3-RM takes still another 9 months. 1 comment period that should last 90 days. The group then will need to revisit the proposed policy and the comments from the community, if any.

The retirement process proposes instances where the review mechanism should apply. There is no interdependency anymore between the review mechanism and the retirement.  Therefor the proposal is to separate part 1 and part 2 of ccPDP3
What does this mean? Firstly, the issue manager should request council to initiate the process of carve out. Means a public comment period where the community is asked to support the process. Issue manager needs to launch this public comment process at request of council. The final report of the retirement process will then be submitted to council and members for their support. Optimistic estimate: members vote around ICANN70 in March 2021.

Poll to the audience: do you support the carve-out?
Yes: 93%
No: 7%
Leonid recalled his negative vote, following a discussion
Conclusion: all on this webinar, that casted their vote, are in support of the carve-out

Leonid Todorov:
Impressive work done to date, tried to share updates with his membership. Voted no. understand the process, but feels it is hard to follow all the different tracks. Community faces a challenge to attract more people to the multiple groups. Prefers concentration, rather than separation.

Stephen:
We actually try to simply things by wrapping up ccPDP3-WG. Shutting it down sooner rather than later. Working in the direction you mentioned: fewer rather than more. One of the intentions is to wrap this up, it is done. No need to continue supporting a dormant WG. Its work is complete.

Eberhard:
Either we have a retirement with a policy, or we have one without a policy, but with an appeals mechanism. It makes sense to have a policy without an appeal mechanism, then to have no policy, and no appeals mechanism

Patricio:
There will be fewer tracks to follow.

Leonid:
Thanks for the extra clarity.  Concern: policy without an appeal mechanism would also create concerns. Problem could be politicized in the eyes of other stakeholders.
Recalls his negative vote.

Bart:
Another argument for the carve-out is to go into the decision making phase for part 1, because by the end of part 2, people will have forgotten about part 1.

Next steps:


  1.  WG will finalise paper on retirement process.
  2.  WG chairs will send paper to issue manager, who will request council to carve out the retirement proposal (probably in parallel)
  3.  If Council agrees: issue manager launches a public comment on carve out and final paper (40 days)
  4.  If carve out is supported, final report needs to go to council, plus ccNSO members vote hopefully by ICANN70
Chairs thanks all for the support and for participating in this meeting.

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/20201015/adc69f6f/attachment-0001.html>