[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 10 August 2022 (19 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 10 August 2022 (19 UTC)



  1.  Welcome & roll call

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake

2.            Administrative announcements (if any)

Stephen: Bart sent his apology.
Board’s consideration for the proposed retirement policy. No update. Confident about a favorable outcome, not sure when. ICANN75 is approaching. Group is having a WG session on 18 September at ICANN75.
Bernie: rumor, Board is expecting to approve the retirement policy at ICANN75
Nigel: even if it is approved at ICANN75, there is still a breach of the icann bylaws. The Board cannot delay the approval process with this substantial delay. What if the Board refuses to adopt future ccnso policies?
Eberhard: this is not a matter for this WG, but for Council.
Stephen: see my comments at upcoming joint meeting between Council and Board at ICANN75

3.            Scenarios for stress testing-exercise (continue)

Bernie looked at the jamboard, categorizing the stickies into similar areas.

>>> Retirement
i. Transfer is subject to review. In the retirement document, this scenario is spelled out clearly.
ii. Triggering event is not an IFO function, but an ISO function. As such there is nothing to appeal for a standard one. If it is a 2-letter code in the reserved list, there is some flexibility, and we can have an appeal on that
Eberhard: there is not much to appeal here.
iii.

>>> IFO does not respond
I. if the IFO does not respond, the manager of the IAR responds to that. Can write to ICANN CEO and Council, stating that IFO has not respected the policy and action is required.
Eberhard: it stops the clock
Bernie: until there is a response
Eberhard: in an IAR a stopping of the clock does not resolve the issue. Not automatically granted. Just stops the clock.
Bernie: ok. To be fixed in the language

>>> Language
Going away from English only is a huge can of worms. Considered for several months in the IRP-work, but in the end decided to keep english only
Peter: I'd carefully suggest the language issue is out of scope, even for the stress test; it could(!) be interesting for the IDN ccTLDs
Eberhard: past precedence of requests in other languages?
Kim: we try to minimize it, but sometimes we need to bring in translation services or intermediaries
Eberhard: worth to include in the policy?
Kim: we try to accommodate as best we can, but we expect communication in english.
Eberhard: ok. Cctld manager needs to be able to read RFC’s too, so here communication in english should be feasible too
Peter: as a ccTLD manager you don't have to be able to read the RFCs if you outsource your operations, so that is a slippery slope
Stephen: non intimidating manner by iana. I support that
Bernie: they can nominate a person with better skills in English, as a contact person
Nigel: all appeals must be in English. But assistance will be given where needed
Bernie: getting icann translation services involved, if you specify “if needed”. Policy is fine as it is.
Nigel: agrees
Kim: Text from our procedural document for customers: "Please submit all requests, templates, and documentation in English. Where accuracy is essential, English documentation and/or English translations of key documents (such as governmental decrees relating to the request) must be notarised or certified official translations.”

>>> Terminology
The IAR are 1 to 3 specialists, who are certified, and have the experience to look into this. The reviewers will have to say yes/no: were there significant issues?
Peter: different interpretations to iso3166 might result in changes of interpretation of the policy. Changes of the rules might result in different situations. Predictable how to get an exceptionally reserved code, might be a game changer
Eberhard: add caveat, that a policy review is needed, if iso3166 changes
Bernie: highly sensible. To be included in wrapper

>>> Name Server issues
Eberhard: purely technical. We always have the CSC.

>>> other issues
Eberhard: either 2 competing applications for review, or one for internal IFO review and another one (IFO review comes first)
Bernie: see registry managers section. Only situation where there can be multiple applicants: for a new ccTLD. All other cases do not apply. No review specific to the applicant, but a review specific to the case. Determine whether there were significant issues.
Eberhard: only manager can go for an IAR
Kim D: (notes missing)
Eberhard: confident that IFO deals with this responsibly.
Eberhard: .um. There was a cctld manager, and the gvt that says the location does not need a cctld. Also in dutch antilles. Few small ones that are called dutch municipalities. Ther might be an applicant, but there is no cctld
Bernie: does not impact the policy
Eberhard: agreed.
Jaap: correction. The islands are known as the Dutch Antilles. Believes they have their code as well. BQ
Eberhard: they have the iso code, but did not want the cctld
Point is: it can happen.
Kim: does not see a distinction between the cases. Just another form of a delegation.
Peter: a requested transfer under retirement
Bernie: already covered.
Eberhard: if sth is identified that would have made a difference in past cases, where there was not an IAR, it needs to be considered
Bernie: ifo stopped to implement decisions, until IAR has been completed. IAR just makes a finding. If it is a retroactive case, policy needs to be structured as such
We have to create a separate branch of process to deal with that. Decision was made, and was not appealed. This is an extreme edge case.
Eberhard: outcome of this edge case is, it is so rare, that we do not deal with it
Bernie: agree.

(notes taken until 19:58 UTC, call ended approx. 10 min. after the hour)

4.            Action items

5.            AOB

6.            Next meetings


  *   24 August 19:00 UTC
  *   7 September (TBD) prep for ICANN75?
  *   At ICANN75:
            Sunday, 18 September 5:15-6:30 UTC – WG meeting
            Tuesday, 20 September 1:00-2:00 UTC – Community update and consultation
            Tuesday, 20 September 5:15-6:30 UTC – Joint meeting:  ccNSO & GAC
            Tuesday, 20 September 8:30-9:30 UTC – WG meeting / debrief

7.               Closure



Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20220811/d07dca5a/attachment-0001.html>