[Ccpdp-rm] CCPDP-RM - estimating the need for review mechanisms

[Bernard Turcotte]

All,

Following Patricio's comment, I had the following exchange with Kim Davies
regarding estimating the number of cases using Kim's best guesses based on
the current history of cases where such a mechanism could have been used if
it had been available.

I would like to thank Kim for the quick response which will greatly assist
in our discussion of the draft Advice mechanism.

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Support to the CCPDP-RM

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kim Davies <kim.davies at iana.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: CCPDP-RM - estimating the need for review mechanisms
To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>


We’ve never performed a revocation (as defined by the FOI). There is one
matter pending that may be a revocation but whether that materializes I
think it is way too early to know.



I don’t think our escalation/reconsideration process has ever been used for
these kinds of requests.



Based on my memory without going and doing an analysis, I would say there
would only be a single-digit number of requests of any kind where there has
been a lack of unambiguous consent from the current operator, and in such
cases there were mitigating circumstances (manager was deceased/defunct,
the domain was offline/lame, etc.) The majority of these would have been in
the 2000s when we were still cleaning up a lot of legacy situations, very
few if any in the last 10 years.



For retirements, attached is the slide I presented at the first meeting of
the retirement working group back in 2017 and I think it is still accurate
today. There have been 5 retirements during ICANN’s existence of which 4
have been concluded and the disposition of SU is pending the Board adoption
of the retirement policy and associated implementation guidance to PTI.



There has only been one application to my recollection that wasn’t entirely
fanciful that has been effectively rejected during my time (in the sense
that they broadly met the criteria for delegation except for a singular
aspect, which they were not able to remedy). We of course get spurious
requests that are not eligible on pretty fundamental grounds (e.g. not an
ISO 3166-1 code) pretty often.



My speculation would be this process would be invoked extremely rarely — if
ever — in legitimately ‘close call’ cases, and is far more likely to be
exercised in failed applications that we would treat as spurious or
fundamentally defective (i.e. doesn’t materially meet many significant
criteria).



HTH,



kim









*From: *Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
*Date: *Monday, October 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM
*To: *Kim Davies <kim.davies at iana.org>
*Subject: *[Ext] Re: CCPDP-RM - estimating the need for review mechanisms



Oh and I forgot - I guess we could look at the numbers of your internal
review/reconsideration process.



Thanks



B.



On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:11 PM Bernard Turcotte <
turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:

KIm,



Hope this finds you well.



Patricio brought up a good point - how many cases could these appeal
mechanisms face in a given year?



I guess we could start with a ball-park estimate on your part of how many
revocations are there each year?



How many applications for a new ccTLD are rejected on the average year,
this includes IDNs (one applicant is refused or two or more applicants for
the same new ccTLD where one of those is selected - yes I know those
processes can take many months and even go beyond a year).



As for retirements - how many years between single changes to the ISO 3166
would be the basis for a retirement? -2,5,10?



Finally how many ccTLD transfers are rejected on average in a given year? I
guess we should include those that simply give up.



Again just looking for your best guesses at this point to assist in our
discussion Wednesday.



Thanks



B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20211011/6899bda2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icann59-cctld-phaseouts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 60335 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20211011/6899bda2/icann59-cctld-phaseouts-0001.pdf>