[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 27 July 2022 (16 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism | 27 July 2022 (16 UTC)



  1.  Welcome & roll call
  2.

Welcome by Chair Stephen Deerhake (.as)



3.                   Administrative items if any


Stephen gives an update on the latest report by Patricio at the July Council meeting.


Copy-paste from notes taken during Council meeting 185, 21 July 2022:

Patricio: update from Board Ad Hoc WG. Since the last update to council, the ad hoc group met once. open items were addressed. all issues resolved, but one caveat. The carve-out isse was still pending. But this Council letter cleared that issue. Happy about that. Staff was asked to draft the draft Board Paper and the Board resolution, which includes the rationale. Glad to report that both drafts are ready and being distributed to the ad hoc group. The group meets tomorrow, so the docs are timely. Patricio will inform the Ad Hoc group about today’s resolution. That was the final open point. We will discuss the next steps for this to go to the full Board. Does not expect this will take long. Next week we will have another meeting, closing the discussions and have the final version of the papers ready. Timeline for the near future. Board and support staff will take a 3-week break. Bringing it to the Board before the break is unlikely. The letter you just approved is answering a question from April by icann legal. things take time. First opportunity will be after the break, and I expect it to be approved by the Board at the very latest during ICANN75.

Stephen: Thanks to Patricio for this update. apologies for what was said to him at ICANN74. We are getting the result we want, but it took longer than expected. We are pleased to hear where things are going. thanks also for the ad hoc committee on your work

Alejandra and Patricio: thanks



a.                  Letter to legal


correspondence from the ccNSO Council Chair, Alejandra Reynoso, to Samantha Eisner, ICANN Deputy General Counsel.  This correspondence is in response to Ms. Eisner’s correspondence of 5 April 2022 to us in response to our questions we posed to her earlier whilst we were looking at a binding review mechanism.



b.      ICANN75


Sun, 18 Sept. ccPDP3-RM in block 3 (05:15 - 06:30 UTC) - stress-testing

Tue, 20 Sept. ccPDP3-RM policy consultation (01:00-02:00 UTC)

Tue, 20 Sept. ccPDP3-RM committee meeting (08:30-09:30 UTC)

Wed, 21 Sept. (01:00-02:00 UTC) slot during joint meeting between ccNSO & GAC



4.                   Second and final reading:  revised review procedure doc
5.

Page-per-page review, led by Bernie. Comments are noted below.

Peter: page 8. Encoding financial obligation in a policy? Is that normative or informative?

Bernie: normative. Icann has committed to this. ICANN pays 4 panelsist under IRP, even though not technically obliged to do so. IRP moves to a standing panel. Completely paid by icann. Makes sense to have it here. Worse case: comment from icann legal.

Bart: procedural section to the policy. You could consider it implementation. Also other areas.

Bernie: basic document. Final version of our working document. Needs to be converted to a real policy submission. That will be the next work item for this group. All basic concepts are now locked down. Can be used for public consultations, including at ICANN75.

Stephen: special thanks to Bernie



6.                   Identify scenarios for stress testing- exercise


Edge-conditions.

Here is the link to the Jamboard: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1ZsM7m18bKgfp5HpVR24MHG32Vzv5SZAbbCSBeco4lj8/edit?usp=sharing

Bart: Why stress-testing?

  *   WG to understand whether the proposal works under edge conditions.
  *   Helps in addressing future expected comments on the RM itself.
  *   Fun to do

Today: develop the scenarios

Zoom breakout rooms. non-ccNSO staff support was also invited to come up with scenarios.


>>> Group 3, Sean rapporteur:



  *   2 competing applications, and the impact
  *   What if there is no action, when there is a deadline
  *   What if the terminology is vague or ambiguous
  *   Change in terminology on 3166 and the impact on RM
  *   What if various parties are affected, but only 1 has applied?
  *   What if no action from IFO?


Bernie: only technical terminology is commonly used (e.g. delegation, transfer…)

Sean: what if a lawyer sees sth, goes down another path

Bernie: change in terminology on 3166?

Peter: terminology changed. Some eligibility criteria might change under the hood of the policy. E.g. making it a code element. Not only terminology, or practice. E.g. reserved status. 50 year period changed to 15 months? External reference changing surprisingly?

Bernie: understand

Bart: this builds on existing policies. What if an existing policy changes, what would be the result under the RM?

Stephen: good point raised by Peter. Way out: tie it to a specific instance of ISO3166.

Bart: we do not have to resolve it here and now


>>> Group 2, Stephen rapporteur:



  *   How do we define unreasonably withheld
  *   IFO timing requirements. What if the 90 days are not respected? Add language at top of doc: if you do not respond within the timeline, request is granted.  What if IFO does not do anything?


Nick: seen experience with ICANN’s delivery times in approval of policy?

Bernie: is the extension automatically granted, or others? IANA is in control. So if they do not reply, it is hard

Bart: perceived inaction, what happens?

Bernie: unreasonably withheld.

Bart: what would be unreasonably withheld, in your view?

Stephen: no

Bernie: goes back to language from retirement policy. Question for implementation of the ret-policy.

Nick: question of fact. To be determined.


>>> Group 1, rapporteur Nick



  *   Lost contacts, but the registry is still operating.
  *   What happens if redelegation requests are just refused? Timing for that?
  *   Bankruptcy and a transfer. What if the caretaker refuses to cooperate?
  *   Language: should be in english. But scope for confusion?
  *   Failure by iana to process routine?
  *   If manager refuses agreement with iana retirement
  *   People asking for conflicting things from the same process
  *   Change of registry operator in middle of retirement


>>> frame 9. Consolidation of scenarios


Action item #1

Secretariat to consolidate the scenarios from the jamboard in frame 9. Group them, and number them. Circulate doc for the next steps by the group ahead of the next meeting.


Stephen: if you think about other potential scenarios, please post them on the mailing list. Do not wait until the next meeting



7.                   AOB


none



8.                   Next meetings


10 August 19:00 UTC - Bart will be on holiday.

24 August 19:00 UTC


Stephen: Continuation of the scenarios during the next 2 meetings, allowing for good progress at ICANN75.

If you attend ICANN75 in person, please let Kim know.

Kim: room sizes in KL. no need for secondary rooms. No pre-registration for the sessions, only for the meeting itself. No priority seating.



9.                   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/20220727/611e7218/attachment-0001.html>