[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM | 23 September 2020 (12 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Hello all,

Please find included below some high level notes from today’s ccPDP3-RM meeting, held on 23 September at 12 UTC.

Best regards

Joke Braeken





  1.  Welcome and roll call


Welcome by Eberhard Lisse, Vice Chair who is filling in for Stephen, who joined a bit later. Stephen apologised for being late. Thank you all for participating. Bart sent his apologies.


All materials and the recording are posted on the workspace.

https://community.icann.org/x/lgObC


2.                  Administrative announcements, if any


a.                  Carve-out process


No longer doing a single PDP for both retirement and review.

Bart, the issue manager, will propose the carve-out of the retirement WG to the Council. There will be some administrative procedures, including public consultation.

Eberhard: issue for the ccPDP3-retirement WG. assumes there will be a vote by the ccNSO membership as well.


3.                  Action items


None


4.                  Decision points table


Bernard produced a table with a recap.

First time it is being presented here.


⇒ Delegation new ccTLD as a result of an MA action.


Issue for review:

     *   Failure to accept application
     *   Contesting an approved but pending delegation

Little time between approval and the delegation, to allow for appeals.

Who can apply? =  who has standing?

If a decision is hard to undo, you may want to introduce a timeline when someone starts the process for the appeal. Hard to conceive that we take a delegation away. What is an appropriate delay for allowing someone to contest. After that there is no recourse. Draft suggestion of 30 days. Just a suggestion.

The applicant is not a ccTLD manager, so is not yet eligible for IFO review.

Process for the delegation can take a long time.


Eberhard: add a note that there might be differences where the entity is an individual or an entity.

Bernard: yes, we will go through this in more detail.  See the column “who can apply”: residence, or place of business, allowing for both types of applicants.

Bernard: IRP. review whether you meet the core requirements. Check-list, so that the body that will run this, can decide whether or not to run the case.

Other than mediation, there is the ombudsman, challenging a board decision. All tools available will need to be considered. Should they be optional? Or a requirement, before going into a full review?

We should allow sufficient time for a party to submit a request. What is the max allowable time for a request for review? 30 days from when? From a Board decision to an IRP process: ok. But other processes require time. the 30-day period would have to take into account that mediation for instance might take longer. It could already take 30 days to set up mediation.  Interplay between the various mechanisms needs to be looked at very carefully. We cannot disallow people to use the review process, including all possible steps.


Nigel: Concerned that we do not get too specific. Any decision to be reviewed.

Regarding the time scale. Failure to decide within a reasonable time frame is one ground to stop the process. For the person alleging to note something.


Bernard: understands the timing concern. At this point in our process, he left it out. We can get back to it. Understands the concerns.

Eberhard: he who alleges has to prove. Agrees with this concept. To be noted.


⇒ Transfer


Bernie suspects that it might be complicated.

All factors that PTI considers when thinking about a delegation/transfer. What do you base your argument on, saying that it was not correct that you were rejected? Access to information? What does PTI publish.


Nenad: burden of proof.

If someone reports not to be GDPR compliant. Those that report are not the ones to prove that the other party is not compliant. The other party needs to proof to be compliant


Nigel: (audio breaking up). We need time and opportunities to seek facts


Kim: how would failure to accept an application work? In practice the iana team does not reject applications, instead, identify things that are missing, or request more information. In practice, iana stops hearing from the applicant. Close the request without prejudice.


Bernie: that brings up the question of timing


Eberhard: bilateral relation between the cctld manager and iana. Principle of burden of proof still applies, and Eberhard does not agree with Nenad.


Bernie: we may need to adjust some of the PTI procedures to make them workable with an appeals process. What is critical is that we make sure that it is sensible for all.


⇒ Retirement


Only thing that is open to appeal, is the failure to grant an extension.

Standing is clear: a ccTLD manager, who is eligible for IFO review


⇒ Revocation


Is in our rules, can be called upon. Such a decision would probably have to go through the board. Would require a period of oppose.


Eberhard: .au and .ke were revoked, technically speaking.


Any general questions? None


5.                  Prioritized list of issues


Bernie prepared a second document

What should we be looking at, when getting into an appeal?

  1.  Standing
  2.  Mechanics: who will administer all the definitions we come up with? (less of a concern. ICANN already has an IRP and there are several independent groups who can do this)


⇒ 1/ standing


Firstly, we need to understand: What can be appealed? By whom? What is required?


Nigel: this is the right focus. Look at the rules for standing in the board accountability mechanisms committee. Someone needs to be adversely affected in order to bring a complaint. Can someone bring a complaint on behalf of a broader community that is adversely affected?


Bernie: wrestled with the harm-aspect. For gTLDs, harm falls in clear categories. Not so clear in this case. Looking forward to the discussion


Eberhard: .eh iana asked applicants to sort it out among themselves. That avoids a review. To be looked into as an example. Both parties who have applied should be able to appeal. Both competing parties.


Nigel: this was a corner case. Great to bring it up. Harm also goes to the wider community that does not gets its ccTLD.


Bernie: counterpoint. RFC5091. In many cases this served us well. Do we want to force iana to make decisions more quickly? We need to be very careful when coming up with a system.


⇒ 2/ What a statement of claim requires?


What info is available to contest a decision? Level playing field needed. What is really confidential?


⇒ 3/ Types of appeals and their interrelations


⇒ 4/ Timing for applications for review


Bernie: advises to be careful. When going through all these procedures before the delegation is done, we could be talking about a procedure that takes easily 1 year.  To be careful.


6.                  AOB


Stephen asks about the carve-out process, whether this was discussed.

Eberhard confirms


7.                  Next meetings


7 October (20:00 UTC)

4 November (04:00 UTC)

18 November (12:00 UTC)


6.                  Closure



Bernie encourages all to review the table and list of issues, and to post comments/thoughts/questions on the mailing list.

Next meeting: start addressing the issue of standing. Bernie will prepare a document that expands on that section.


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/20200923/2ffaa10c/attachment-0001.html>