[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 9 February 2022 | 20:00 UTC

Wed Feb 9 21:10:08 UTC 2022

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 9 February 2022 | 20:00 UTC

1.  Welcome

Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/zAEiCw

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake

2.  Administrative matters

o    Meeting cadence and timing

Stephen suggests meeting on a weekly basis, for 60 min.

Re-visit at the next meeting. Some green ticks, one red.

Call timing. Preference to moving it to 19:00 UTC?

Kim: please consider daylights saving time

Bernie: DST change is scheduled for Sunday March 13 2AM

Kim: .. in North America. March 27 in Europe, and various other days in other regions and hemispheres

Bart: revisit after ICANN73?

o    Letter from GAC to ICANN Board (retirement policy)

The GAC has provided its opinion on the ccNSO PDP Retirement to the ICANN Board of Directors.  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-botterman-31jan22-en.pdf

GAC thanks the WG for keeping them updated. Despite the lack of participation. This helped them to come to their conclusion that there is no issue from a public policy point of view.

Stephen suggests doing the same for ccPDP3-RM

Staff report: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/country-code-top-level-domains-cc-tlds/ccnso-proposed-policy-retirement-cctlds-pcp-summary-report-02-02-2022-en.pdf

o    Update questions to ICANN Legal regarding binding

No timing yet for a response.

What happens if the protagonists cannot agree? We do have clear authority as the ccNSO for developing binding policy for PTI, subject to the board’s approval.

o    ICANN-IANA Contract (Article VIII Escalation Mechanism) (https://pti.icann.org/agreements [pti.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pti.icann.org/agreements__;!!PtGJab4!qmMJkloxige5sLIyzRlOB7vQahxnYvNbRDoHx_eOvkpIzwzxJsO0Y4yUt2Zh1K0X2cGTGBAz$>)

PTI contract clause. Section 8

3.  Finalize:  Non-binding mechanism document - attached

Allan: We have to engage with the GAC. proposing a policy that would be acceptable to the community at large. Concerned that if we keep a very narrow list of who has standing, we hit a brick wall.  We should engage with the GAC o whether the gvt should have standing, and try to solve this

Eberhard: under no circumstances. Review mechanism for contending parties. Fundamentally opposed to engaging.

Stephen: GAC stepping back. In this process we will end up in a similar situation with respect to the retirement policy. Get their ok at the end without their active participation. We solicit active participation. They do not provide it. They are happy with our updates

Eberhard: We will brief them.

Bart: question for Allan.  Explain why they need to have standing in all cases identified? Delegation, transfers, retirement and revocation? And why the gvt, and not other parties in the SIP? Ifo decision is focusing on ccTLDs, not on SIP. There are other escalation procedures available to them. Why should gvt have standing? And why in all 4 cases?

Allan: concerned about getting in a debate with GAC at the end on the standing. Intervention to engage with them early on, so they are surprised at the end. That is the only concern.

Surprised about all reviews on the ccPDP3-RET.

Bart: see highlighted sections. PTI-IANA contract complaint procedure, and built on that the mediation, restricted to the direct customers of the iana naming function. Reiterates that argument. Would this text come down that path to explain why it should be limited?

Allan: it is a start. There are many gvts that believe that they appoint the ccTLD manager.

Mechanism in which they have no role.

Bart: WG is aware of direction of travel, and does have a role in the choices they made. Once this goes into public comment, whoever is opposed will react.

Stephen: GAC did not comment during the initial comment period. But they did during the PC offered by the Board under the bylaws. With proper informative updates from ccNSO to GAC, we would likely get a similar result from them

Eberhard: gvt legislate. We have asked them often to send someone.

Patricio: if IFO discards a complaint, the complainant could try to use this process, and then find out they have no standing. Our rationale: we are finding the legitimacy of all of this in RFC1591. Does not foresee complaint for failed revocation

Bart: go through the PTI and IANA contract again, because there is this complaint procedure. Not sure when/if non-direct customers may use this. Going back to RFC1591, the policy could replace parts of it, if you decide so.

Bernie: proposes to remove the yellow from draft text for now. As we do presentations, and issues come up, we will deal with them

Eberhard: just use mediation process. Icann proposes 5 mendiators. Does not work? Appoint another 5. Likes that icann pays the costs. Mediation of the iana function contract. For a proper review, you must go through the mediation.

Bernie: next meeting. does mediation replace the non-binding process here?

Bart: we have a nice way to at least get to the icann board. Iana functions contract is not at stage of this kind of review. The type of decisions this panel could take, is different from the mediation process. Overcome the differences between PTI and the direct customer.

By next meeting Bernie and Bart will provide overview, so we can compare the 2. Use this for the time being as a way forward for the discussion with icann legal on binding. We started this as a mechanism based on arbitration, with exception of binding, but well beyond mediation. Discussion with icann legal.

Stephen: yes, proceed

Bernie: binary decisions.

Question for Eberhard: still of the opinion that impartiality requirement is not required?… 3 options.

  *   Administrator needs to be impartial by definition.
  *   A jointly appointed single arbitrator.
  *   Or 3 arbitrators.

Eberhard: likes the single arbitrator. No 3-person panel. We can revisit the next step

For non-binding, likes the icann contract. Especially how the arbitrator is chosen, and that icann pays.

Bernie: remove option 3 (3 arbitrators). Any objections?

Bart: why not keep option 1 or 3, and leave this up to the manager?

Nick: UDRP. unnecessary complexity. Risk of making it complicated.

Bart: We cannot decide on what the complainant wants. 1 person? Set up possibly for failure

Nick: does not like that someone with more money can buy a better judgment

Bernie: will remove the yellow block for now since there is no agreement

4.  Next meetings

            23 February

            16 or 23 March (ICANN73 7-10 March)

Stephen: prefers to meet on 16th March

Bart: Normally we skip the meeting afterwards. Advises to go for 23 March.

Stephen: ok

5.  AOB

6.  Closure

 Thank you all. Bye!

Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20220209/a51838ad/attachment-0001.html>