<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=RU link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Please accept my apologies for not attending today’s call. Last 2 days were so busy with different meetings that I just got lost in my schedule –((<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>However I went through the notes and I will listen the recording <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Meanwhile I’d like to ask for clarification on the work distribution between different PDP<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Yesterday during the first call of ccPDP4 WG on IDN ccTLD Policy it was stated that PDP4 has decide on <b>TRIGGER EVENT</b> for IDN ccTLD retirement<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>It is my understanding that <b>THE PROCESS </b>of IDN ccTLD retirement is the same as for ASCII ccTLD and is defined within PDP3<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The same for review mechnisms<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Is that correct?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Second question is regarding the table discussed on the last call <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/9+September+2020+-+04%3A00+UTC?preview=/144376716/147849430/CCReviewProcedure-FrameworkV0.2.xlsx">https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/9+September+2020+-+04%3A00+UTC?preview=/144376716/147849430/CCReviewProcedure-FrameworkV0.2.xlsx</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Line 2 and 4: Contesting the approved but pending delegation/transfer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Is the suggestion to introduce 30-days delay between decision to approve delegation/transfer and the implementation of such a decision to provide time to apply for the review?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Manu thanks in advance<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Irina<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:RU'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:RU'> Ccpdp-rm [mailto:ccpdp-rm-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Joke Braeken<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:01 A</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:RU'>M<br><b>To:</b> ccpdp-rm@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 on Review Mechanism WG | 9 September 2020 (04:00 UTC)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Hello everyone, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>please find some high-level notes from today’s meeting included below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Best regards.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Joke Braeken<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>1. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Welcome and roll call</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake. Thanks all for attending.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>To consult the recording, go to the public wiki </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/jAObC"><span style='color:#1155CC'>https://community.icann.org/x/jAObC</span></a><span style='color:black'> . </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>2. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Administrative announcements, if any</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>ccPDP3-ret met last week, continued discussion on public comments received. No language changes to the initial document. Summarising comments. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Next steps by Bart: One of the arguments to combine ccPDP3 part 1 and part 2 : to save time, and to have 1 member vote. However, seen where we are now: Chair submits report back to Issue Manager, to go back to council, ask community to respond to request to split the 2 parts. Go back to council with the final report, and then have a members vote. Process will be explained during next week’s ccPDP3-ret meeting as well.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>3. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Action items</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>none</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>4. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Decision points table </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernard is leading the discussion around this.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>What are the elements that could be the basis for an appeal?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:black'>⇒</span><span style='color:black'> Delegation</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>A/ failure to accept an application.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Who can apply? The applicant, who could contest that</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Probably a good idea to have mandatory mediation before you go into review/appeal.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Why? 1. Make sure all understand the basics about what is going on, and there is a clear channel of communication. 2. Unclear what is public. Cctlds differ here from gtlds.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>B/ contesting an approved but pending delegation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Very hard to undo, once it has been done. Consider timing elements that affect iana’s timing processes. Who can apply? Suggestions included, but needs to be discussed. If they do win, they are not eligible for the delegation, technically, if they are 3rd parties from other locations.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Peter: does this cover IDN ccTLDs as well? Eligibility of the code could be contested.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: no IDN ccTLDs not included. ccPDP4 to wrap up and then amend this accordingly. Also not included in ccPDP3-ret. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Nigel: would any third party be able to challenge the delegation? We need a comprehensive approach to standing to bring an appeal to this. Just because you are in the country, does not mean you can challenge an icann decision. Who has standing?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: good point. “And support or non-objection from the government”. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Stephen: consider this in line with the checklist by iana on new delegations</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: some elements of this, indeed</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bart: RF5091 applies to IDN strings as well. This policy is directed at icann, but is effectively focusing on the actions of the IFO. The overall selection of IDN ccTLD strings is not something where the IFO is involved in. Confusing similarity review is within remit of icann and icann.org, but not IFO.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>In principle the delegation process, the transfer process and the decisions under these processes are subject to the review mechanism, delegation process for ascii and idn ccTLDs are the same. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: delegation and transfer should be the same for ascii and idn ccTLDs. Evaluation of the string (eligibility as idn ccTLD): only decision that would be appealable. Expert panel discussions are a big issue for IRP. we may want this out of our scope.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Allan: support for Nigel’s comments on the issue of standing. Where there could be a split between the LIC and the gvt, there could be a disproportionate power for gvt. When you deal with corporate identities, it is easy to identify who is in country or not. A place of business could be a lawyer. Notion of harm is one of the tests in the current review mechanism. Imperfect solution should be avoided.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: we need to be very clear on who has standing. The harm test is going to be difficult. The harm test comes in once the decision to delegate has been applied.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>PTI considers a lot of the information confidential. The review process will need some independent people to look at the request. If the appeal is accepted, the decision to delegate should be put on hold until the case is resolved</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Naela: mediation vs going into the review mechanism of procedure. What is mediation?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: you bring in both parties. Informal. Mediator does not need to decide. Both parties need to understand each other's views properly, without going into appeal. Mediation is a lot shorter, involves less people, is cheaper. Just a suggestion, there is no process yet, for the group to consider.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Eberhard: court case against minister of health. Was taken into mediation. Quick, flexible, private, high level of success rate. Voluntary. Less formal than court. Final. Quasi-judicial procedure in Namibia.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math","serif";color:black'>⇒</span><span style='color:black'> Transfer</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Same information as the one from delegations.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Only entity to contest is the applicant. We do not want completely unqualified applicants.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>What are the processes we want to use? Mediation or not? Mechanisms. Many examples already exist within icann. We need to verify it meets our requirements</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bart: did you consider revocation?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: not included, because we never did revocation. Worst case could be a forced transfer. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Will be added in the next version of the document.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Stephen: did we discuss the idea of revocation for gross mismanagement in the FOI? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bart: we did discuss it under the retirement. When we discuss revocation, we should look again at the IFO. Reasons for revocation are limited.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Nigel: recalls that they looked into it in FOI. to be verified</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>5. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>AOB</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bernie: section 4 of the IFO. definition of revocation. Identified as a separate thing.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Bart: look at WG charter and see what needs to be addressed. Charter can be found here: </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/aAuJBw"><span style='color:#1155CC'>https://community.icann.org/x/aAuJBw</span></a><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Further discussion: who has standing, rules and structures of a review mechanism. We do not have the resources to re-invent the wheel. We are following the structure of what is laid out in the charter. Well under way in getting the topics covered. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='color:black'>6. <span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Next meetings</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> 23 September 2020 (12:00 UTC)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> 7 October 2020 (20:00 UTC)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>No meeting during ICANN69. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> 4 November 2020 (04:00 UTC)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Please continue the discussion on the mailing list. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>Joke Braeken<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>ccNSO Policy Advisor <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><a href="mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org"><span style='color:blue'>joke.braeken@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ccNSO"><span style='color:#954F72'>https://twitter.com/ccNSO</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'>Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/"><span style='color:#954F72'>https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB'><a href="http://ccnso.icann.org"><span style='color:blue'>http://ccnso.icann.org</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>