[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG | 26 Jan 2022 (20 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism WG | 26 Jan 2022 (20 UTC)

1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake
Thanks to all, including Vice Chair

2.  Administrative matters

Public comment period on ccPDP3-RET closed. Four comments were received:

  *   RySG in support of the proposed policy
  *   ALAC in support but additional clarity on reviews
  *   BSC specific points regarding the policy
  *   Individual comment from .su: request additional clarification on applicability
Comments are directed at the ICANN Board not at the ccPDP3-WG or the ccNSO Council

Nigel: comment. Need closer attention to the Bylaws and the process the Board will be going through. Requirements for rejecting. It’s in the hands of the Board. They should be approving it.
Patricio: Board decided to create an ad hoc group. Group is almost ready to start. Members have not been appointed yet. Katrina, Patricio, Becky and Avri will most likely be there. They will advise the board on the course of action. We welcome your comments, if there is anything that needs to be brought to the attention of the ad hoc group
Stephen: What timeline for the ad hoc group?
Patricio: Various steps. Ad hoc group since none of the Board WGs seems to be appropriate for this matter. Policy from the ccNSO does not go often to the Board. This group is also tasked with proposing how to deal with policy from the ccNSO in the future. No timeline. But asap.
Stephen: Is there concern ccNSO is kicked out of policy? Is there something the ccNSO might have done out of band? Not within bylaws
Patricio: no concern at all. Itinerary is in place for GNSO policy, but no itinerary in place for the ccNSO
Stephen: transparency from the ad hoc group? What will be on the website regarding the work by the ad hoc group?
Patricio: do not know. Standards for the current WGs and committees will be in place
Nigel: remember section 15
Patricio: not inventing new procedures.

3.  Review: process flow chart

Adjusted to the new version, using arbitrators. No longer a panel.
Nigel: the flowchart describes the process of internal review, but not the process of appeal?
Low level detail.
Bernie: this is a flowchart about what the steps will be. (high level)
Nigel: more clarity needed for non-lawyers. “Review” has different meanings
4.  Review: non-binding mechanism document - revised (attached)

Bernie: annex to the doc. We can chat about it offline
Significant changes on the scope.
What can be appealed by who? We looked at each of the processes. Result of looking in detail at what a delegation is, who is involved, by when a response, eligibility for review, etc. what does it imply for the eligibility to request a review.
2 lines of inquiry vs a request for an appeal? Did iana follow its procedures, and was this done fairly and in line with the policies we have and IFO?
Patricio: line 82. Should it be “or” instead of “and”?
Bernie: yes.
Patricio: line 88. This looks like a range. Both numbers seem to be intended to be the maximum
Bernie: will fix
Nigel: line 88. Why would anybody pay 100.000 dollars for a non-binding arbitration?
Bernie: will talk about that later
Eberhard: costs. Not who pays for it.

Bernie: 3 arbitrators. Finances. Did not make sense. To discuss. 2 other options added:

  *   Review by administrator only. Risky, but limited costs
  *   Review by a single administrator
Choice by the manager.
Eberhard: issues with the cost. Both parties will share the costs of the selected arbitrator evenly. Not fair.
Bernie: good point. We should no longer have the 3-person panel, it is too expensive
Nigel: internal review. What is needed is the analogue of the utility review schemes where by there is a Final Response letter from ICANN/IANA.
Patricio: I think the preferred term for that “internal review” would be “reconsideration”
Bernie: internal review is already used by the IFO.
Eberhard: was previously discussed.
Nigel: no internal review of what the IFO has done through a more senior person in the organisation
Eberhard: we addressed this
Bernie: we can run through the discussions which explained the models
Stephen: 5th reading regarding non-binding mechanism language
Nigel was not present in the earlier discussions, the group agreed to go down that path previously.
Bernie: can talk to Nigel offline, explain where we came from

Bernie: defining what a significant issue is
Eberhard: we must define what received is
Bernie: yes. See later

Page 1.
Eberhard: if an application for a not entitles applicant is received, where none of the requirements for local residents. All boxes unticked. Would that not be rejected?
Bernie: yes. If the applicant wants to pay the money to look at this, that is their choice. If you predetermine that they do not meet the requirements, you end up with more errors, fairness. But indeed, if the boxes are not met, they can indeed start the process.
Administrator can work with the applicant
Ifo points out the issues that need to be addressed by the applicant. IFO keeps explaining they keep not meeting the basic requirements until the applicant gets tired.
Stephen: comment by Kim
Kim: good summary. We point out defects in the application

Bernie: no formal IFO process for a revocation. If a notice of revocation is sent to a manager, the current manager can use the process to appeal it.
Patricio: we should be aware that in terms of revocation.. Party that does not have a standing. Issue might come up during public comment.
Bernie: what is the official process for this. The IFO set out the conditions
Eberhard: only reason for revocation is substantial misconduct. I do not want people applying for revocation, and each party can use an appeal. Agrees with the way it is written here. Revocation has never happened. If it does, there is a good reason for it.
Nigel: we need to think about principles. Any decision should be subject to an appeals process (inaudible)
Bernie: let’s park this.

Bernie: 2 more points. See retirement process. Yellow text earlier in the doc. We will revisit at the next meeting. This is about standing.

6.  AOB

Irina: you might know that there is currently an icann operating plan under public comment. SOPC is to provide comments. One of the issues that came to mind, is whether the policy development processes have enough resources allocated from ICANN org. Recalls this group having sent a letter to icann legal in October, and still no response. Is this because of the lack of resources? Or other reasons? To be included in the comments to the strategic and operating plans for the next years?
Stephen: indeed. Was in the joint SCBO and SOPC today. Yes to those concerns.
Irina: appreciates the support from the ccNSO Secretariat. But is there a lack of resources from other parts of icann org?
Stephen: can take this offline
Eberhard: we need to discuss this here.
As a Vice Chair, and Chair of Tech WG i do not feel undersupported by icann. Secretariat supports us ably. Issue by icann legal is an issue of engaging with subject matter experts. For future PDPs the same support is good enough. Not an issue of lack of resources.
Stephen: it is not their role.

5.  Next meetings

     9 February | 20 UTC.
     23 February
     16 or 23 March (ICANN73 5-10 March)

7.  Closure

Thank you. Bye all.



Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20220126/fcb4a4bb/attachment-0001.html>