[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 RM | 17 February 2021 (13:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Hello everyone,

Here are some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP3-RM meeting.

Best regards,

Joke




  1.  Welcome and roll call


Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake.

Recordings will be posted on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nQRACQ



2.                   Administrative announcements, if any


ccPDP3-ret: Public comment starts this week. Then it will go to Council and the membership for a public vote.



3.                   Action items


None



4.                   Requirement of process review



a.                   what to include?

b.                   pros and cons of various panels

c.                   Pro cons two or three step process

d.                   Jamboard link: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1MBopxNRfIz_60NesP6Kfv5wwxjsGG_SUVN_XFuKp69A/edit?usp=sharing


Frame 4: summary

Frame 5: summary in words


All groups added reference to RFC1591 and FOI.

To which extent? In the sense of a policy doc (delegation, transfer, revocation), or referring to a specific part of these?

Eberhard: if parties are not satisfied, they have an avenue for appeal. Then the question comes what can you appeal? It originates from the RFC. need reference to both. Administrative review. Complete rehearing is a must.

Patricio: perhaps we should not reference RFC1591 anymore. Not always unambiguous. Many elements are not relevant anymore. When the FOI was prepared, attempt to make it up to date. Everything should be in the FOI report. Reference to RFC1591 would confuse matters. FOI should take precedence, it supersedes the RFC.

Bart: Q to Patricio. FOI is not a formal policy, and was not developed through a ccPDP. Is that relevant?

Patricio: yes, not new policy. It’s role was to interpret policy. “RFC1591 as interpreted in the FOI.”

Bernard: complete rehearing of the board.

Eberhard: complete re-hearing (see 3rd line frame 5). In favour of complete rehearing. Agrees with Patricio.

Peter: constitutional documents, process needs to be compatible. They should be mentioned. When it comes to rehearing: depends on the case. Maybe not all of the issues we listed should be subject to the same guidance. Procedural? Yes to rehearing. Operational? Appeals mechanism prior

Bart: complete rehearing to be treated as separate items. First focus on RFC1591 and FOI.

Jaap: RFC1591 for info only. Do not take it as the constitution.

Bart: the reference to RFC1591 as a source doc as interpreted by the FOI sets the parameters for the RM, especially the decision-making etc.


Bart: complete rehearing.  Full review of the decision.

Eberhard: must be a substantive review (not how it was done)

Bart: if you go back to the FOI. the FOI does not mention this. How should we parse that?

Eberhard: plain language. 2 parties, if they can’t agree, can go to a review Board. Operating procedures to be decided by us.

Check green mark if you agree with the full review

Maarten: agrees with Eberhard. Does that mean that in the procedure new facts/figures can be brought in, that were not judged before by PTI?

Eberhard: we can decide to do this or not. Depends on the mechanism. Must be substantial.

Bernard: do we have more than 1 procedure? Is there an escalation mechanism? Full rehearing could depend if we have an escalation mechanism with several steps. Ultimate step would have to provide a binding solution. Question of new material is not a simple one

Nigel: there is no review mechanism for matters related to cctld transfers and delegation. Carve out. Accountability mechanisms. Internal review. IANA might think again, appeals to the icann board. But: those are not independent, and we need that.

Eberhard: understanding of RFC, arguments only during application process. But changed his view. 2 contending parties: not for iana to decide. That is not practical. If someone is aggrieved and has standing, internal escalation, and then the mechanism we will design

Allan: not sure how to answer Bart’s question. Should there be an escalation procedure? Allan would vote yes. Wait until we evolved the procedure, to see whether we need the final step.

Nigel: It is crucial for the people affected and for icann as a community and org that there is an independent tribunal

Eberhard: agrees. Must be an independent mechanism. Must be an internal mechanism: this costs less, and resolves issues internally.

Bart: 2 suggestions:

  *   Complete rehearing: tends to agree it is too early. To be parked. Although not included in the initial exercise as an item by any of the groups
  *   One step for the escalation process should be independent. Do you agree? Check your green mark. Some green marks, no red ones.

Nick previously had a comment about the timeliness of the process and policy. To be addressed at a future meeting.

Existing mechanism to build on.

Bernard: our best place for intervention is in between the decision of IANA and the decision by the Board. No spillage that could possibly create secondary issues

Eberhard: german administration. Rechtsmittelbelehrung. What options you have to file a request for appeal. If they fail to include this, it has consequences. No preference : before or after the board

Bernard: german concepts fits with excel spreadsheet. Discussions with icann legal

Nigel: the board has ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the entire corp. By convention IANA takes the decision and the board approves. Board has ultimate responsibility for what PTI does. To be included in the process. The board can correct a mistake, if a mistake is being made.


Scope of review


Do not include category:

There was one group that added the “subject to local law” sticky note.

Eberhard: each proceeding cannot be subject to local law. Every entity is subject to a jurisdiction.


(notes stopped 5 min before 14 UTC)



5.                    AOB



6.                    Next meetings



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/20210217/012b10fe/attachment-0001.html>