[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM WG | 20 January 2021 (21:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Dear All,

Please find included below some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP3 meeting.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken




  1.  Welcome and roll call

Welcome by Stephen Deerhake (.as)


2.                  Administrative announcements, if any

ICANN legal is scheduled to participate in the next conference call, scheduled to be held on 3 February.  This will rather be a meet and greet. ICANN legal is aware of the work done to date.


3.                  Action Items

None


4.                  Issues to explore and define with respect to review mechanism (break-out groups)

Initial issues Document.
Jamboard exercise today.

2 weeks ago we finished the spreadsheet with the decisions and conditions around it. Time now to focus on the review process itself. How should it look? Before we start to start drafting, it is a good idea (similar to ccPDP3-RET), to think about the requirements this group has around the process. We will use flipcharts. What must be included in a review process? Nice to include? What should not be included? Please focus on the process itself
The drafting team that made the charter of both ccPDP3 WGs, came up with a scoping document. Included in the charter and in the issue report. What we circulated is more detailed.
Page 2: scope of the review mechanism
Some questions were already discussed in the work leading up to the spreadsheet. Now it is time to start focusing on the rules and structure of a review mechanism. What type of requirements around the process itself? Standing panel? How should the selection be run? What type of decisions should be taken? Overturn a final decision? Board role? Due diligence check by a panel?
Sticky notes have been pre-loaded with some of the points from the issue paper. Focus on the process itself, and list elements in the 3 columns. This is a preparation for the upcoming meeting with ICANN legal.

Allan: formal appeal process? Or in the policy?
Bart: this is about the appeal process itself
Peter: maybe ‘consider’ rather than 'include'?
Bart: must include for further discussion
Eberhard: must have, nice to have, will not have. Mandatory, optional, out

Break-out session: reporting back from the discussions in Jamboard



  *   Group 1 (reporter: Bart)

[cid:image001.png at 01D6EF82.FA9F5020]

We started to refine the headings. Definitely warrants further discussion in the first column. We did not discuss the sticky notes in the right.
⇒ Column 1: relation between the constitutional docs (RFC, FOI, retirement docs). This link should not be too tight, as policies may change over time.  New policy around retirement for instance.
⇒ Column 2: ICANN bylaws. Linkage should be maintained. Strong point: future review mechanism should be self-contained. New people should be able to understand the process and requirements. Should not be referred to all the side-documents, such as RFC1591.
Further discussion needed: should the process be a complete re-hearing? Can people provide new factors? Panelists can hear the full story again vs an administrative review and rather a due diligence verification
The groups should first start looking at the existing processes in the ICANN framework.
Eberhard: likes the idea that in addition to RFC, FOI and retirement policy, need to look at the bylaws. ccNSO part of the bylaws is not that long.
Bart: it should be available to all ccTLDs, independent whether you are a member or not.



  *   Group 2 (reporter: Bernard)
[cid:image002.png at 01D6EF82.FA9F5020]
Quick addition to “not include”. Should not be subject to local law.
Panel should be similar to IRP



  *   Group 3 (reporter: Stephen)

[cid:image003.png at 01D6EF82.FA9F5020]

Green: sticky notes, Yellow: notes, explanation to the sticky notes.
Group did not address “what are the grounds” and “icann bylaws”
Eberhard: applicable to all ccTLDs? Or available to all ccTLDS? Would this change in word make a difference? Ccnso manager would be bound, unless he leaves. Cctld manager is not bound if he loses, but iana is bound if he wins.
Sean: they will end in court. Judges will look for precedence that exists.  That would fold in any non-ccNSO party
Eberhard: .africa case. You cannot change your arguments from what you presented in the quasi-judicial procedures.


5.                  Next meetings

03 February 2021 – 05:00 UTC
17 February 2021 – 13:00 UTC
03 March 2021 – 21:00 UTC


6.                  AOB

none

Eberhard does not appreciate the Board jokes.  He also wants to ask ICANN legal if they can explain how the IRP arbitration panel works. Go through norms.
Stephen: ccNSO carved itself outside of the review mechanisms, they will be involved.
Bernard: IRP is in the process of being changed. Samantha Eisner would be joining the meeting on the 3rd. She is leading a lot of the work on the IRP, and can answer the questions you have.


7.                  Closure

Thank you all!



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/20210120/0c4ba6c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 108514 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210120/0c4ba6c1/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 100576 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210120/0c4ba6c1/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 134637 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210120/0c4ba6c1/image003-0001.png>