[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 on Review Mechanism WG | 9 September 2020 (04:00 UTC)

Wed Sep 9 09:21:56 UTC 2020

Dear all,

Please accept my apologies for not attending today’s call. Last 2 days were so busy with different meetings that I just got lost in my schedule –((

However I went through the notes and I will listen the recording 

Meanwhile I’d like to ask for clarification on the work distribution between different PDP

Yesterday during the first call of ccPDP4 WG on IDN ccTLD Policy it was stated that PDP4 has decide on TRIGGER EVENT for IDN ccTLD retirement

It is my understanding that THE PROCESS of IDN ccTLD retirement is the same as for ASCII ccTLD and is defined within PDP3

The same for review mechnisms

Is that correct?

Second question is regarding the table discussed on the last call  https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/9+September+2020+-+04%3A00+UTC?preview=/144376716/147849430/CCReviewProcedure-FrameworkV0.2.xlsx

Line 2 and 4: Contesting the approved but pending delegation/transfer

Is the suggestion to introduce 30-days delay between decision to approve delegation/transfer and the implementation of such a decision to provide time to apply for the review?

Manu thanks in advance

Best regards,

Irina

From: Ccpdp-rm [mailto:ccpdp-rm-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:01 AM
To: ccpdp-rm at icann.org
Subject: [Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 on Review Mechanism WG | 9 September 2020 (04:00 UTC)

Hello everyone, 

please find some high-level notes from today’s meeting included below.

Best regards.

Joke Braeken

1.           Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.  Thanks all for attending.

To consult the recording, go to the public wiki  <https://community.icann.org/x/jAObC> https://community.icann.org/x/jAObC .  

2.           Administrative announcements, if any

ccPDP3-ret met last week, continued discussion on public comments received. No language changes to the initial document. Summarising comments. 

Next steps by Bart: One of the arguments to combine ccPDP3 part 1 and part 2 : to save time, and to have 1 member vote. However, seen where we are now: Chair submits report back to Issue Manager, to go back to council, ask community to respond to request to split the 2 parts. Go back to council with the final report, and then have a members vote.  Process will be explained during next week’s ccPDP3-ret meeting as well.

3.           Action items

none

4.           Decision points table 

Bernard is leading the discussion around this.

What are the elements that could be the basis for an appeal?

⇒ Delegation

A/ failure to accept an application.

Who can apply? The applicant, who could contest that

Probably a good idea to have mandatory mediation before you go into review/appeal.

Why? 1. Make sure all understand the basics about what is going on, and there is a clear channel of communication. 2. Unclear what is public. Cctlds differ here from gtlds.

B/ contesting an approved but pending delegation.

Very hard to undo, once it has been done. Consider timing elements that affect iana’s timing processes. Who can apply? Suggestions included, but needs to be discussed. If they do win, they are not eligible for the delegation, technically, if they are 3rd parties from other locations.

Peter: does this cover IDN ccTLDs as well? Eligibility of the code could be contested.

Bernie: no IDN ccTLDs not included. ccPDP4 to wrap up and then amend this accordingly. Also not included in ccPDP3-ret. 

Nigel: would any third party be able to challenge the delegation? We need a comprehensive approach to standing to bring an appeal to this. Just because you are in the country, does not mean you can challenge an icann decision.  Who has standing?

Bernie: good point. “And support or non-objection from the government”. 

Stephen: consider this in line with the checklist by iana on new delegations

Bernie: some elements of this, indeed

Bart: RF5091 applies to IDN strings as well. This policy is directed at icann, but is effectively focusing on the actions of the IFO. The overall selection of IDN ccTLD strings is not something where the IFO is involved in. Confusing similarity review is within remit of icann and icann.org, but not IFO.

In principle the delegation process, the transfer process and the decisions under these processes are subject to the review mechanism, delegation process for ascii and idn ccTLDs are the same. 

Bernie: delegation and transfer should be the same for ascii and idn ccTLDs. Evaluation of the string (eligibility as idn ccTLD): only decision that would be appealable. Expert panel discussions are a big issue for IRP. we may want this out of our scope.

Allan: support for Nigel’s comments on the issue of standing. Where there could be a split between the LIC and the gvt, there could be a disproportionate power for gvt. When you deal with corporate identities, it is easy to identify who is in country or not. A place of business could be a lawyer. Notion of harm is one of the tests in the current review mechanism. Imperfect solution should be avoided.

Bernie: we need to be very clear on who has standing. The harm test is going to be difficult. The harm test comes in once the decision to delegate has been applied.

PTI considers a lot of the information confidential. The review process will need some independent people to look at the request.  If the appeal is accepted, the decision to delegate should be put on hold until the case is resolved

Naela: mediation vs going into the review mechanism of procedure. What is mediation?

Bernie: you bring in both parties. Informal. Mediator does not need to decide. Both parties need to understand each other's views properly, without going into appeal. Mediation is a lot shorter, involves less people, is cheaper. Just a suggestion, there is no process yet, for the group to consider.

Eberhard: court case against minister of health. Was taken into mediation. Quick, flexible, private, high level of success rate. Voluntary. Less formal than court. Final. Quasi-judicial procedure in Namibia.

⇒ Transfer

Same information as the one from delegations.

Only entity to contest is the applicant. We do not want completely unqualified applicants.

What are the processes we want to use? Mediation or not? Mechanisms. Many examples already exist within icann. We need to verify it meets our requirements

Bart: did you consider revocation?

Bernie: not included, because we never did revocation. Worst case could be a forced transfer. 

Will be added in the next version of the document.

Stephen: did we discuss the idea of revocation for gross mismanagement in the FOI? 

Bart: we did discuss it under the retirement. When we discuss revocation, we should look again at the IFO. Reasons for revocation are limited.

Nigel: recalls that they looked into it in FOI. to be verified

5.           AOB

Bernie: section 4 of the IFO. definition of revocation. Identified as a separate thing.

Bart: look at WG charter and see what needs to be addressed. Charter can be found here:   <https://community.icann.org/x/aAuJBw> https://community.icann.org/x/aAuJBw

Further discussion: who has standing, rules and structures of a review mechanism. We do not have the resources to re-invent the wheel. We are following the structure of what is laid out in the charter. Well under way in getting the topics covered. 

6.           Next meetings

 23 September 2020 (12:00 UTC)

 7 October 2020 (20:00 UTC)

No meeting during ICANN69. 

 4 November 2020 (04:00 UTC)

Please continue the discussion on the mailing list. 

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor 

 <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> joke.braeken at icann.org

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter:  <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook:  <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

 <http://ccnso.icann.org> http://ccnso.icann.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20200909/c3e3d5ae/attachment-0001.html>