[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM WG | 24 November 2021 (20:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

1.  Welcome

Welcome by Stephen Deerhake

2.  Administrative matters

Bernie spoke with Sam Eisner. She had time to formally set up the group internally that will work on this. Group consisting of Amy Stathos and Sam herself.  They will meet on Monday, and afterwards will get in contact with Bernard.

ccPDP3-RET public comments closes mid January (12 Jan). Staff report will be available shortly afterwards (1 week later)

Bernie updated the document

3.  Review:  Non-binding mechanism document - revised (attached)

Bernie gives an overview of the changes made since the last meeting.
To do: We need to give a description on what we consider to be significant

>> Standing

Stephen: contentious on who was eligible to file complaints. Does the group agree?
Eberhard: do we talk about every decision, or only revocation?
Bernard: In the previous doc we agreed that all applicants for a new ccTLD are eligible for the process. We also discussed automatic consolidation. Bernard worked on consolidation for IRP during the past years, and work is still not done. Panel will look at the data for everyone that applied.
Eberhard: Are we talking about the delegation process?
Bernard: We are talking about all appeals.
The only place where someone who is not a ccTLD manager can apply, is delegation.
Kim D: last call. If someone was unsuccessful in seeking a transfer, the appeal could be launched by the current cctld manager?
Bernard: only place where a  non cctld manager can apply, is the delegation for a cctld
Eberhard: consented, non-consented. 2 different things
Allan: we need to be more transparent about the wording and their applications
Bernard: agreed
Allan: who has standing and is  a claimant in transfers? We need to come back to this
Nigel: We complicate matters. If iana makes a decision, we need to give a right of appeal. Why restrict it? If the appeal has no merit, it will not succeed.
Patricio: if you talk about standing, cctld managers should have standing. What about  a non cctld manager? Seems yes, for initial delegation of a ccTLD. What is the rationale for excluding would-be managers in other stages? E.g. someone requesting a revocation.
Bernard: regardless of the process, the cctld manager will be affected. Except in a new delegation, because there is no cctld manager there.
Nigel: process overview.  Disagrees with Patricio in part. Not every cctld manager has automatically standing. The issue is whether the iana made a decision. If you are unhappy with that decision, you should have the right to appeal that. On the process overview: language needs to be that in some cases iana accepted the request, but the complainant is still not happy.
Eberhard: starting point is RFC1591. We want to have a mechanism for ccTLD managers. Does not agree if outcome of the work by this group is different
Nigel: we start from the principle that everything the iana does must be subject to principle of fundamental fairness
Peter: is “failure to make a decision” appealable under this process?
Bernard: see discussion later today

>> Administrative objectives

To ensure we are supporting automatic consolidation

>> process overview

Applicant for independent advise has not been made, but has been accepted.
Allan: valid request. Seen the structure here, do we need the word “valid”?
Bernard: we started listing the criteria but can adjust the language if needed
Nigel: problem with the word “preliminary”. Maybe not the best word we could be using. Provisional could be better
Bernard: ok. Was a placeholder.
Comment: 7 days is a placeholder. Needs to be discussed with Kim whether it makes sense.
Patricio: contested decision / preliminary decision.
Barnard: we are not sure whether it is contested yet.
“relevant” . sensitivity concerns. We need to be transparent. Who is the claimant, its representatives, and the panelists?
Kim: we always tell the applicant what is missing and ask them to correct. We do not give them an emphatic no. they will disappear if they realise they are not eligible
Nigel: there is a model,  I can provide more details in due course. England, Wales. Zoning applications when building a new house. Local council needs to make a decision on your application. You can appeal it if your application is turned down, or the authority fails to treat it in 8 weeks. Such a deadline here?
Bernard: we are on the right track, but the language needs to be refined
Kim: various deadlines in this doc. What happens if the administrator does not do matters in a timely fashion?
Bernard: currently approach that the administrator needs to do it
Nigel: thanks for all your hard work.
Are we not allowed to use the word “matter” anymore?
The administrative role relating to a review. Not in the bylaws. Existing accountability mechanism, such as reconsideration, apply.
Bernard: new rules include “action” and “inaction” by staff

4.  Next meetings

            8 December
            22 December (TBC)

5.  AOB

6.  Closure

Thank you all. Bye!



Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20211124/1934cc0a/attachment-0001.html>