[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group | 2 June 2021 (20:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

Dear All,

Please find some notes from today’s CCPDP3-RM meeting on 2 June at 20:00 UTC

Best regards, Joke



  1.  Welcome and roll call


Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake


The documents were previously circulated and can be found on the wiki:  https://community.icann.org/x/pwOlCQ



2.                  Administrative announcements, if any


Issue Manager to send email to Council regarding split of part 1 and part 2.

Deadline for Council to react to the separation resolution: 4 June , noon UTC.

Adoption of the policy recommendations at ICANN71. Afterwards to membership for voting


WG members invited to reach out to ccTLD community regarding the need to vote.

Voting in the first election round is expected to start on Wednesday, 7 July 2021 (00:01 UTC) and will close on Wednesday, 28 July (23:59 UTC).

Voting requirements:  Annex B, Item 13,  ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexB>:


3.                  Action items


One: Documents regarding “binding”. Completed.



4.                  Document review (previously circulated last Friday by Bernard and attached)


Bernie found legal memos. All included in the documents.  Circulated on mailing list,

Any questions? None

Stephen: any documents that Bernie did not include that you believe are relevant?

None



5.                  Overall principles discussion (attached)


Useful that a WG starts with high level principles to guide the discussion.

1st paragraph: purpose of the principles.

Based on experience to date: 2 general principles.

Stability, security, interoperability of the DNS. part of the policy remit mission of the ccNSO and the broader mission of ICANN. Hence requirements around the review mechanism. Limited duration = preserve stability etc. low cost, has to do with accessibility. One of the reasons why IRP would not work.

Fundamental fairness has been raised on several occasions. Eberhard to provide more details. Included as a placeholder.

Patricio: general principles.

First one comes from what ICANN is supposed to be about. But how is it a general mechanism for the RM? Both covered by predictability and legitimacy of process. Why is the 1st needed for the RM?

Bart: Clarity around role of the ccTLD operator. Legalese way of looking at it. Having an undisputed delegation preserve the stability of the DNS?

What is the objection of including it?

Patricio: the need for a RM preserves stability. But this group discusses how the RM should look like.

Bernie: outline the need for limited duration as a minimum

Eberhard: what are the timelines for delegation, transfer etc?

Kim D.: depends.

Eberhard: duration helps wit the predictability

Bernie: IF the predictable time for a review is in years it is predictable but it is not good for stability and security - at least for me

Maarten: should binding be a specific principle? Or perhaps the value of the outcome

Eberhard: fall under predictability?

Bart: We captured the principles to date. We need to review the documentation that Bernie found around binding. Full discussion about this, also with Sam Eisner. Then re-visit this document. See how binding could impact.

Patricio: On the other hand,I have no objections to the Specific Principles, which are the specs for our product

Bernie: written question(s) to be prepared for icann legal regarding binding. Written answer to be expected back from them. Various actions which we need to get through to determine the approach.



6.                  Policy Session at ICANN71


Proposed structure.

45 min for ccPDP3

Next 45 min for ccPDP4

How much time does this group expect to need to present questions and/or progress?

Update webinar in April, to the GAC. not as much progress made as hoped. We can list the topics, but not really asking feedback from the community, as PDP4 does.

Given the need to inform the community, especially ccTLD community about the upcoming vote, leadership to spend some time to explain the retirement recommendations again.

Condensed set of slides used in the April webinar. Core discussion points.


Stephen: ccPDP4 might need more time. ccPDP-RM does not need much time. But we face a challenge regarding the ccPDP3-RET upcoming elections.

Eberhard: I would like that every action by one side triggers a clock for the other side to respond.


 Proposed slide deck on mailing list shortly



7.                  AOB


Concern about the documents sent by Bernie. How to proceed with questions and discussions ?

Limited group looks at it and discusses with the full group? Or full group does the initial examination?

Call for volunteers online.

Leadership and staff come up with a path forward to put together a small group. Next meeting is on 7 July, so there is time to prepare ahead of time.



8.                  Next meetings


Policy Session at ICANN71 | 16 June 10:30-12:00 UTC
7 July | 20:00 UTC



9.                  Closure


Patricio: icann org off for 3 weeks in august. Should we have meetings in August?
Eberhard: consult group on mailing list.
Thank you all. Bye


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/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210602/e1cd012a/attachment-0001.html>