[Ccpdp-rm] CCPDP-RM - Questions for ICANN Legal on Binding - Options for the Decision by the Mechanism

[Maarten Simon]

I agree with Patricio that option 1 is the most logical decision a panel would take in the example case.

The discussion with regard to ‘reasonable’ and ‘reasonable and fair’ triggered by me the question that we in another stage may have to answer.  That the question is: what are the norms/criteria/principles that the IFO has to apply when taking a decision in the cases that can trigger a review? The work of the review panel would then be to judge if the IFO’s decision violates these norms/criteria/principles (and if the impact of the violation is that serious that the IFO’s decision should be annulled/replaced by another decision).

The ‘fundamental fairness’ concept that Eberhard presented seems to me the overarching principle but we may want to (also) try to formulate a number of norms/criteria/principles more concrete and make it easier for the IFO, the parties involved and a review panel to do their work and makes it all more predictable. It will of course never lead to a simple yes/no list but give a bit more direction.

Best,

Maarten



Van: Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm-bounces at icann.org> namens Patricio Poblete via Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm at icann.org>
Beantwoorden - Aan: Patricio Poblete <ppoblete at nic.cl>
Datum: donderdag 16 september 2021 om 03:00
Aan: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
CC: Kimberly Carlson via Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm at icann.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [Ccpdp-rm] CCPDP-RM - Questions for ICANN Legal on Binding - Options for the Decision by the Mechanism

I support option 1.

Patricio

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:07 PM Bernard Turcotte via Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm at icann.org<mailto:ccpdp-rm at icann.org>> wrote:
All,

Firstly great discussion and progress on this document - thanks all.

We do have one final point to resolve which is which option is best for the Decision by the Mechanism. We, currently, have two options which are (also highlighted in yellow in the document):

The decision by the mechanism:

OPTION 1

The panel in the review mechanism produces a final declaration that the refusal of the IFO to grant the extension is unreasonable and therefore goes against the Board approved policy for the retirement of ccTLDs.

OPTION 2
The panel in the review mechanism produces a final declaration that the refusal of the IFO to grant the extension is unreasonable and therefore goes against the, for example, ccNSO’s policy for Reviews, the Retirement Policy, RFC 1591, the FOI for RFC 1591 as adopted by the ICANN Board, the IFO’s Reasonable Expectation document as well as any other relevant IANA documentation.

Please provide your feedback to the list on this issue prior to our next call.

Thank You.

Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Support to the CCPDP-RM
_______________________________________________
Ccpdp-rm mailing list
Ccpdp-rm at icann.org<mailto:Ccpdp-rm at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccpdp-rm

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210916/df89af43/attachment-0001.html>