[Ccpdp-rm] NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism teleconference | 1 June at 19:00 UTC

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP3 Review Mechanism teleconference | 1 June at 19:00 UTC



  1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Stephen



  1.  Administrative announcements

Alejandra reached out to Patricio, following Stephen’s request during the May Council meeting. He will provide an update where the ad hoc group is at, during the upcoming Council meeting



  1.  Actions items

None



  1.  Review presentation policy update at icann74

Tuesday, 14 June | 11:15-12:30 UTC (Princess Ariane)

Eberhard offering to be in the overflow room
Bernie speaks to the slide deck.
Allan: use of term binding - lightweight?
Stephen: after Sam’s input it became clear that an independent binding mechanism is not an option.
Eberhard: does not want anything related to ccNSO becoming part of the IRP. outdated terminology by mistake? Must be removed. Regarding (non)bindingness of the mechanism: open. We call the mechanism “lightweight”, to avoid the use of binding and non-binding.
Allan: agrees.
Eberhard: avoid use of adjectives during this update.
Stephen: seems like all agree with the direction we are going in.
Maarten: agrees. But worries we do take a turn from binding to non-binding, and we do not present it. This is complicated. But do we still meet the expectations from the outside world?
Stephen: we are ok, when looking at our charter.
Irina: I tend to agree with Maarten. Probably not going deeply into details. but mention that the mechanism might have certain limitations
Bernie: if we have too many details with the general audience, we might lose them
Last slides contain specific results. We are well within our charter. We do not serve the community very well by going down a number of rabbit holes. Do not forget there will be 2 comment periods.
Allan: what are we saying about the issue of the applicability of the existing IRP to retirements and revocation?
Stephen: what does the WG think is appropriate?
Allan: not for us as a group to decide, but to deflect to the broader community that there is an issue. We should indicate that the icann legal advice has suggested that ccTLD may not be carved out of the IRP. WG continues to discuss this with icann legal. We have to deal with it at some point.
Eberhard: does not think we should mention icann legal. Instead, mention that we noticed that IRP uses terminology which is no longer used. Retirement and revocation should be covered. Retirement is a non-issue, because it is so rare. Redelegation means revocation and transfer.
Maarten: first point. Well explained why we do not focus on the binding non-binding issue. Fine with that for now. Regarding the carve-out: is it something for us to do anything with. Simply flag to the council and see what they want to do with it?
Stephen: leaves it up to the group.
Eberhard: not a matter for council, but for community. Perhaps mentioning it a few times raises attention, and we see what happens.
Allan: We have to flag the issue. We are not coming to a consensus on what to do, before we meet in The Hague. Flag as an issue that has arisen. We are going to deliberate.
Bernie: reasonable. Icann legal told us we are looking at it this way, but they want to know what “we” (undetermined) think. Flag issue, no suggestions on how to handle it. Will adjust one bullet in the slide, after we mention icann legal.



  1.  Prepare ccPDP-RM workshop at ICANN74

Tuesday, 14 June | 1300-1400 UTC

Proposed agenda:

  *   IRP carve out
  *   Review doc (continued)
  *   Input from policy update session, if any



  1.  AOB



  1.  Next meetings

29 June | 19 UTC
13 July | 19 UTC

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/20220601/96f4724c/attachment-0001.html>