[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3-RM WG | 8 December 2021 (20:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3-RM WG | 8 December 2021 (20:00 UTC)



1.  Welcome


Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake (.as)

Thank you all for participating over the past year. Happy New Year and happy holidays


Recording, attendance and background material will be posted on the wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/Gga7Cg


2.  Administrative matters


No news yet on binding, from Sam Eisner. Most likely she will join the 2nd ccPDP3-RM meeting in January.


Bernie updates the document, as per the discussion from the previous meeting


ccPDP3-RET Board Public Comment is now open

See https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/ccnso-proposed-policy-on-the-retirement-of-cctlds-22-11-2021

Patricio: some days ago official notice was sent to the GAC, so they have an opportunity to provide feedback, if deemed necessary

They can provide formal GAC advice.

Normal process.


Bernie: first meeting: 05 Jan or 12 Jan?

Stephen: concerns regarding the 22 Dec meeting at 22 UTC

Group agrees not to meet on 22 Dec.

First meeting in 2022, will be on 12 January 2022, 20 UTC


3.  Review:  Non-binding mechanism document - revised


Bernie

Different approach

Scope. This allows us to get away from standing. It defines standing.

No comments by the group


Same processes as before, but looked at differently. IFO decisions. No deadline for the IFO on delegations.

Nigel: you need to look at fundamental fairness, in any decision

Kim: we have SLA’s. There is an accountability mechanism that ensures timely responses etc. What is not covered by an SLA, is Board consideration.

Bernie: you have the possibility to terminate an application, if it does not lead to anything. Administrative closure. 14 day notice.

Requests do not stay open forever. The way we worded it. If the IFO uses that process to terminate the request, that is a decision by iana. Manager involved can use the process.

Nigel: The decision is good. But it does not speak to the rights of the applicant.

Eberhard: do not over-engineer. Offer a mechanism against decisions by IFO. but if the applicant delays the proceedings, that is not a matter you should be able to appeal

Allan: how will the GAC look at this, when we are done? Can governments use that mechanism? That might be a concern.

Eberhard: making the mechanism available to governments? Deep ditch, willing to jump. We make this mechanism available to applicants. Underlying principle: it concerns ccTLD managers and applicants, not third parties

Nigel: agrees with Eberhard. But differently. Concerned we do not under-engineer it. We look at tactical scenarios. Secondly, Allan is right when wondering what the GAC will say. There was a GAC-member on the FOI WG. We did not have the benefit of GAC input in the retirement group, and we felt that.

Bernie: park this until later


Bernie runs through a flow chart.

Any questions?

None

It will be shared on the mailing list shortly.


>>> Process overview


If someone applies for a review, and they get rejected. The moment the review comes in IFO stops processing the decision. If that party keeps applying for a review, and it gets accepted, and the panel determines that there are no issues, nothing prevent them from re-lodging the application. This would be a circle of blocking the IFO to take a decision. “One kick at the can”-principle

Eberhard: issue regarding charging cctld managers for this

Bernie: We looked in the past at fee-bands. Understand the point. But if there is no charge, some will automatically appeal if they do not like the decision. We do not talk about fees here, except on the

Rebound.

Bernie: panelists cannot be icann staff. By definition conflicted.

Question to consider. Depending on how you define COI

Eberhard: certified panelists. Where was this discussed?

Bernie: see previous version of the doc

Avoid people coming in and not knowing what we are talking about

Eberhard: do not be too restrictive. Future discussion wanted

Bernie: if we want this to be effective, do we allow anyone to represent the client? That could cause issues

Eberhard: not just anyone. We need to define the criteria

Bernie: that is what we are saying regarding certification. Minimum set you need to meet.

Eberhard: both sides need to have people they can trust. Issue with certification beforehand. Would appreciate if this was marked as “still under review”


4.  Next meetings


Group agrees not to meet on 22 Dec.

First meeting in 2022, will be on 12 January 2022, 20 UTC


5.  AOB


None



Bernie: will produce another doc with another level of detail prior to our meeting on the 12th. Will share on the mailing list prior to that.

Eberhard: perhaps we can resolve my concerns, me and Bernie and then we can announce that at the next meeting

Berne: always available


6.  Closure



Thanks all. See you on 12 Jan. Bye all.

Best regards,

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/20211208/b2083125/attachment-0001.html>