[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group | 03 February 2021 | 05:00 UTC

Wed Feb 3 06:11:30 UTC 2021

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group

03 February 2021 | 05:00 UTC

________________________________

These high-level notes do not replace the recordings, but are intended to help you navigate through the call.

  1.  Welcome and roll call

Thank you for joining. Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.

Recordings will be posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/hARACQ

2.                   Administrative announcements, if any

Status update by Stephen.  ccPDP3-RET is almost done. Soon to be sent for public comment: phasing out part 1 (on the retirement) from the overall ccPDP3.

3.                   Discussion with ICANN Legal – Sam Eisner

Sam introduces her role within ICANN. She is familiar with many concepts and cc-matters within ICANN (including Accountability, PTI).

Slides as level-setting, getting on the same page is important.

Background:

  *   IRP and reconsideration process: exclusions in the bylaws: ccTLD (re)delegations
  *   2 allowable disputes under the IRP now

Bylaws do not reflect the wording in the FOI.

WG did a lot of effort in areas of dispute and potential issues for review, but not the path for review

Questions:

  1.  PTI Escalation Mechanisms are available. If applicable, how much more is needed to build?
  2.  How much of a right of challenge does the WG wish to provide a 3rd party?
  3.  What standards has the WG considered

Bernard: when you mentioned “anyone”, it seems reconsideration does not apply. In that case the anyone category is out of the board?

We try to take each one of the processes that affect ccTLDs now and identify areas in these processes where we think there should be a review mechanism to apply. The retirement process will become active once the PDP is concluded and the policy is accepted. Same for ccPDP4-IDNs: still ongoing.

Eberhard: quotes from RFC5091

Board is not part of the IFO. We are establishing it. Esacalting inside the IFO is ok, but the review must be independent from the IFO.

Bernard: part of the concern on just the internal side is that PTI makes the decision, and does its own review. We are seeking something neutral.

Stephen: how do we try to reconcile - even if possible - all the review mechanisms where the ccTLDs are carved out of in 2016. What would you like?

Sam: needs to be discussed with the team.  The balance of independent process. What does it mean to come to those decisions? What does the outcome mean?

Challenges to coming back to the letter to RFC5091: reality. Contractual obligations, bylaws and community mechanisms that hold PTI to these processes. How to build a layer on top of that? Level of independence? Reversal of decision as an outcome? How to build this in? Assessing the resource needs for this mechanism

Bernard provides more background

When we looked at the PTI matters, we saw they have an internal review mechanism. Light-touched and fully internal. We are looking for some independence.

Clear from the table: if PTI announces a decision, the point of a RM is that that decision should be able to be reversed for just cause. Most of the significant issues centre around the delegation or transfer of ccTLDs. We understand that you cannot unwind that, once it is done.  If a decision is contested, the delegation should be put on hold, until the issue is resolved. That cannot take months. There is a 30 day sunset period. Anyone who is eligible to lodge a request, can file a complaint during this timeframe.

Eberhard: 2 different issues

  *   Location. Are existing rights involved
  *   transfer/delegation. No existing rights. competitors. A revocation according to FOI can be done only in case of substantial misconduct.

Bernard:

Retirement policy brings along a third class. One of the reviews for the retirement process: does PTI grant an extension or not for the retirement process?

We also discussed possibly different levels. It does not make sense to have a single process that is very expensive for small ccTLDs. They do not have the resources. We should keep into consideration that (part of or at least one) mechanism is cost-effective.

Nigel:

Clarifies the focus. Fill the lacuna in the carve-out on matters related to delegation and change of management of ccTLDS. There is no mechanism between a mild email complaint to IANA and full-blown court action.

Peter:

Board envisaged in RFC5091 has partly served as a model in the WG discussion. How far do we really want to mimic this in the output of the WG?

Eberhard:

Retirement is a different beast. It involves the process. Trigger is not appealable. We can name our board or mechanism IDNB, so it has exactly the same name as in RFC5091.

Cheaper option for smaller ccTLDs? Only concerned with the revocation. Decisions may affect existing rights, and should not be on the shoulders of the ccTLD manager.

Sam:

Helpful conversation. Summary of the goal of this group: Not multiple mechanisms to address the issues. Not the PTI staff and not the ICANN Board. Challenge a PTI act, within a certain timeframe.

The costs might be different, depending on the type of issue. Who should bear the costs in different situations?

Bernard:

Group is looking for a mechanism that has the authority to make binding decisions

Allan:

Comment by Bernie. Existing IRP is seen by many as not very accessible to the ccTLD community. Cumbersome and expensive. Could a new mechanism be even less accessible, because it is so novel?

Sam:

English to be accessible as a working language? Do not assume this is the case

4.                   Next steps / how to move forward

Sam:

Cadence to work together? We need to start dedicating time to this. ICANN70 requires resources.

Eberhard:

Language comment. We will not require translations. If a ccTLD does not have enough language knowledge to understand the technical docs, they have a hard time.

Bernard:

Time for getting together again? In 2 weeks, or in 1 month?

Sam:

1 month is reasonable.

5.                   Next meetings

Regular meeting in 2 weeks (17 Febr | 13 UTC): Go over slides Sam presented.
3 March 2021 | 21 UTC. In a month from now Sam comes back with thoughts on where
they have gotten so far.

Addition Sam to mailing list: Kimberly to do

6.                   AOB

Thank you.

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/20210203/5cb7a129/attachment-0001.html>