Stephen Deerhake: Okay, so as always good afternoon, good evening Good morning, and whatever it is, wherever you are.
Stephen Deerhake: Again, for the record, Stephen Derek the chair of this be seen so review mechanism Working Group, I want to thank everybody for.
Stephen Deerhake: pitching in and joining us on today's teleconference, this is the 24 nov to go to one edition and we're tasked, of course, with developing I can policy with respect to.
Stephen Deerhake: Establishing a review mechanism for the retirement of cct lds and for the record we've convened at 20 hundred utc as per usual.
Stephen Deerhake: Also, as always, I want to thank those of you who will be there stayed up really late gotten up really early or giving up your evenings for today's call and again, as always, a big thanks to our support staff.
Stephen Deerhake: roll call taken in the usual manner festus your audio only and I don't think we've had a better audio only for quite some time, make yourself known to staff, thank you.
Stephen Deerhake: With regards to administrative matters.
Stephen Deerhake: i've had no word back from Sam is nearby can legal regarding our work on binding, but perhaps Bernard something I do not so Bernard do we have any news there.
Bernard Turcotte: Yes, we do I spoke with Sam about our work yesterday.
Bernard Turcotte: She has not had time to go through our thing, but she has had time to set up formally set up the group internally, that is going to work on this and the group is just two people herself and amy Santos.
Bernard Turcotte: Which is very good, because amy's in church the ir piece.
Bernard Turcotte: So, and they have a full meeting on this on Monday and Sam will touch base with me after that meeting, to see how things are going and what if they need anything else, or if they want to meet with the group that's my update.
Stephen Deerhake: Okay, thank you, sounds like they're getting their dartboard ready yep.
Stephen Deerhake: Okay um.
Stephen Deerhake: I had a question regarding the status to the board level public comment which Kimberly has.
Stephen Deerhake: Put in the chat it's already underway.
Stephen Deerhake: And Kimberly what were those days when an open and when it closes.
Kimberly Carlson: I can find my unmute the was open on the 22nd of November and will close on the 12th of January 2022.
Bart Boswinkel: reporters do a week after.
Stephen Deerhake: Okay, so we have progress on that front as well.
Stephen Deerhake: Thank you for that update part as well, thank you Kimberly for that update as well um I have no action items to report on, and nor do I believe staff does, but I should pull you guys and see if i've missed anything so am I overlooking anything okay completely Bernard.
Bernard Turcotte: Well, the only.
Bernard Turcotte: Unofficial action item was update the document which i've done.
Stephen Deerhake: Yes, so got that um so given all that i'm done with.
Stephen Deerhake: The administrative trivia so we'll move on to the art of today's call, which is the continuation of the non binding review of the non binding mechanism that we've worked on their last couple of calls.
Stephen Deerhake: bernards done around a thorough rework of the document we reviewed last time out based on the feedback received on the last call and so we'll take another look at his word smithing today, I hope you guys had a chance to review what was posted.
Stephen Deerhake: So that's it for me so Bernard i'm going to give the floor to year you, sir.
Bernard Turcotte: Thank you, Stephen.
Bernard Turcotte: As a general note, as I was going through the previous version decided that you know it would be useful to.
Bernard Turcotte: dig in to some of the things that we were looking at, and as I started digging I got into.
Bernard Turcotte: Looking at.
Bernard Turcotte: What the processes would look like if everything was going straight and then expanding on those things, and the expansion grew quite a bit in the details and I decided that just keeping it to that.
Bernard Turcotte: would be the best thing at this point because it will indicate a direction of travel for the rest of the document once we finished going through this and see if it's Okay, or what changes need to be brought so that's the thinking behind this, if you will.
Bernard Turcotte: All right, let's get started under the general objective.
Bernard Turcotte: First, paragraph says the same the second paragraph, just helps us set up some things further on.
Bernard Turcotte: Such a mechanism would be a logical next step to the iPhone customer service complaint resolution process and could be used, prior to the parties launching an arbitration or court proceeding, so I think that's fairly.
Bernard Turcotte: accurate and benign and I don't think that should cause any heartburn to anyone.
Bernard Turcotte: Under a specific objectives, create an optional and independent review mechanism inspired by arbitration.
Bernard Turcotte: Which is non binding on the CFO or I can and will not prevent the claimant from using any other dispute resolution mechanism to address the IFO decision affecting.
Bernard Turcotte: Again I think that's a pretty clear summary of what we all agreed to, but i'll pause there for a second see if there's any issues.
Bernard Turcotte: Right i'm not saying anything don't be shy.
Bernard Turcotte: On scope redid this section grabbing some stuff from various parts just to make it clear.
Bernard Turcotte: On the decisions that we're looking at addressing with this mechanism is the delegation of a new cct ld.
Bernard Turcotte: Transfers revocations refusal to grant an extension to the retirement deadline or the CCM so retirement policy.
Bernard Turcotte: notice of retirement for two letter Latin cct ld well should be for a two letter.
Bernard Turcotte: Latin CCTV which does not correspond to an ISO 3166 dash one alpha to code element per the CC and so retirement policy, which is our draft jargon, for what we used to call the exceptional reserve list.
Bernard Turcotte: Any other policy approved by the SEC, and so, and I can, which allows CCL days to appeal the decision by the IFO just the thinking right away, of making this future proof.
Bernard Turcotte: i'll help their.
Stephen Deerhake: Comments questions.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay fairly straightforward all right, the independent device review will only provide advice regarding now done a few changes here well basically what i've done is included significant so it now reads.
Bernard Turcotte: And where i've added it here i've used track changes so everyone can see where it has changed.
Bernard Turcotte: If there were significant issues with the iPhone properly following his procedures and applying these fairly in arriving at its preliminary decision or if the preliminary decision being reviewed is significantly inconsistent with rfc 59 one the CC and so fly for rfc.
Bernard Turcotte: as approved by the board as well as any other policies which replied to CC and so members and as approved by the I can port.
Bernard Turcotte: So, and in my comment there to try and explain why I looked at doing this, given this as non binding that we are aiming to have this done expeditiously and that we are proposing later in the process overview section that the if I can reimburse the claimant.
Bernard Turcotte: issues are found should be if issues are found it seems logical that we focus on significant issues, I mean.
Bernard Turcotte: Going making something efficient if the panel is looking for major things as opposed to knit.
Bernard Turcotte: You know, obviously, is a helpful advice to the panel does mean they can't look at what they want, and if we are going to go with a reimbursement of a claim and expenses, obviously.
Bernard Turcotte: I think we have to be fair and say that if that's going to occur it's going to because they're going to be significant issues.
Bernard Turcotte: i'll pause there for a SEC.
Stephen Deerhake: not seeing any comments or questions, yet no hands.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay, and what we're going to have to do.
Bernard Turcotte: Just to be clear, is we're going to have to work on giving a description of what we consider significant i've already got some ideas on that and i'll be including that in a further version I was waiting to see if this was Okay, with the group all right let's go to standing.
Bernard Turcotte: This is where i've been thinking about this, and after rereading it this afternoon before this, I made a minor change, I thought it helped clarify this.
Bernard Turcotte: Standing eligibility, given the independent advice review is a logical next step to the iPhone customer service complaint resolution process.
Bernard Turcotte: Both our reviews of io decisions resulting from a request, but one is internal, while the other is external, independent.
Bernard Turcotte: And that it is optional for claimants and not binding on the iPhone or I can, it is logical that similarly to the CFO process, only the persons who initiated the request.
Bernard Turcotte: With the CFO are eligible to apply should be for an independent advice review so except for the linguistic NIPs I think we're sort of positioning this clearly, and it also addresses the idea of our Charter I think fairly clearly stephens.
Bernard Turcotte: If you're speaking Stephen we're not hearing you you're muted.
Stephen Deerhake: I am indeed sorry about that.
Stephen Deerhake: I just want to check with the group on this, because this was a bit of a contentious issue as to who was eligible to.
Stephen Deerhake: file claims in our discussion in our last group, so I want to make sure that everybody is on board with this Thank you and I see everhart Scott is andres everhart your next Thank you.
Eberhard Lisse: Thank you i'll be talking about every decision or just the one for delegation, because that reads every donkey can apply for every delegation and if sorry revocation and if it's not approved, they can find independent review that doesn't make sense to me.
Bernard Turcotte: Well, what we have said.
Bernard Turcotte: In the previous documents and agreed is that all applicants for a new cct ld are eligible for the process that is what we have said.
Bernard Turcotte: What we have also discussed is automatic consolidation, meaning if you will recall, in our last discussion.
Bernard Turcotte: I had mentioned that I have.
Bernard Turcotte: been working on consolidation for the I rp I can say rp for last three or four years.
Bernard Turcotte: still not done it's still not going to be done for a while, so what I had proposed and seemed was OK, with everyone is that we have automatic consolidation, meaning.
Bernard Turcotte: The first one to the first applicant for a new CCP ld that wishes to apply for independent advice that is accepted for our rules.
Bernard Turcotte: Well that's it we will the panel will look at the data and information for all for everyone that applied.
Eberhard Lisse: My question was predominantly are we talking about the delegation aspect for a new city here.
Bernard Turcotte: we're talking about all.
Bernard Turcotte: appeals.
So.
Eberhard Lisse: If if if a donkey applies for vacation for.ca and doesn't get it, and that.
Bernard Turcotte: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and and go for independent rice.
Bernard Turcotte: No, no, no, I get the sense of your question, no, no.
Bernard Turcotte: As we said, the only place where someone who is not a cct ld manager can apply is in delegations So yes, your answer is delegation after that we're talking about only people who are cct ld manager so maybe there's a clarification, I understand your point now.
Eberhard Lisse: There can't find Thank you.
Bernard Turcotte: you're muted Kim.
Kim Davies: Oh thanks um I guess i'm.
Kim Davies: Just just thinking through the discussion, I think we had on the last call.
Kim Davies: Would a consequence of this be.
Kim Davies: Actually, let me rephrase.
Kim Davies: I think, during the last call I had noted that if someone was unsuccessful in seeking a transfer.
Kim Davies: that the response was well the kill could be launched by the currency security manager, but find a stand, this wedding correctly if the applicant is the gaining party, then the.
Bernard Turcotte: Currency so no.
Bernard Turcotte: yeah, as I said, to Abraham I understand this question now obviously that's not clear, so i'll take back to work on this, but the only place where a non CC manager can apply for this, as we had said in the previous.
Bernard Turcotte: dodge is worth delegation of a new CCTV.
Kim Davies: Right.
Eberhard Lisse: I think I can kimball speaking about a consented.
Eberhard Lisse: concert, it was unsuccessful i'm speaking revocation that means non consented So these are two different things.
Bernard Turcotte: Yes, correct.
Stephen Deerhake: Alan your next.
Allan Macgillivray: Thank you, Stephen.
Allan Macgillivray: I think I just like to make a general comment um.
Allan Macgillivray: I, I think we need to be a lot more transparent about the implications of some of this wording, because even some of the Members in the Group are not.
Allan Macgillivray: completely clear of what what it means, so I think it's just a challenge to Bernie that that we somehow when we put the document note, it will be transparent about what we're talking about so.
Allan Macgillivray: So that.
Bernard Turcotte: i've already taken that on Ellen I agree.
So.
Allan Macgillivray: and
Allan Macgillivray: I just we may have to come back on this question about.
Allan Macgillivray: Who has standing, who is a claim it in in terms of transfers because i'm mindful that discussion we had last about the scope, you know and charging of the of the scope of the PDP.
Allan Macgillivray: So I just want a table that I think will come back when we get around language to both specifically who can apply them can thanks.
Bernard Turcotte: Thank you Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: yeah I can hear me okay.
Stephen Deerhake: yeah.
Nigel Roberts: Okay i'm.
Nigel Roberts: i'm a little bit confused and I think Alan has been a very good point here.
Nigel Roberts: I don't think we want to be offering a a menu whereby people, some people are entitled to.
Nigel Roberts: appeal, a decision of the ayana and some aren't.
Nigel Roberts: I think, as I think we're in danger over complicating it and if the eye on a makes a decision.
Nigel Roberts: And the decision is adverse to the person who.
Nigel Roberts: is involved in the decision, then we need to be giving some kind of a rock right of appealing and independent review and I can't really see.
Nigel Roberts: Why, you would restrict this because if the appeal has no merit, it will not succeed.
Bernard Turcotte: Right part of the challenge of rewriting this.
Bernard Turcotte: Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: Now i'm just trying to lower my hand that's.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay, and you have succeeded in doing something all right.
Bernard Turcotte: I think there's a point we'll get back to Patricia.
Patricio Poblete: yeah I I wasn't able to follow really the last session, I was in parallel meeting, so I may have missed some of the rationale for for this, but it would seem to me that if well you talk about standing.
Patricio Poblete: it's quite clear that CCTV managers should have a standing, this is a support issues for the that we're doing in the context of SEC SEC an assault so.
Patricio Poblete: there's no question about that the thing is someone who's not a city manager, will they have a standing and so here there is agreement that for the initial delegation of with obviously city lead, they would be managers would have a standing Okay, given that.
Patricio Poblete: Was the rationale for excluding with the managers in other stages.
Patricio Poblete: Like, for instance, as ever heard was saying, someone who's requesting revocation.
Patricio Poblete: A lot of CC dld and they don't get it, so they they are the one to appeal, there would be managed here, so why wouldn't they what's the.
Patricio Poblete: how's that different from the initial delegation and i'm not actually arguing for giving them standing i'm actually leaving to restricting standing only to to see city of the banners because, otherwise, who knows where will we will am.
Bernard Turcotte: that's exactly why we had crafted the language originally around the notion of.
Bernard Turcotte: cct ld managers because, regardless of the process we're following it's going to be the cct ld manager that's going to be affected.
Bernard Turcotte: The only process where that's not the case, is when there is no cct ld manager in a new delegation that is why we say in a new delegation, anyone who applies can use this process and that's why we have the.
Bernard Turcotte: If you will automatic consolidation of the case and we're not asking every single one of them who wants to appeal it to appeal it the first one that would appeal, it would get a review of the whole thing.
Nigel Roberts: Nigel yeah thanks.
Nigel Roberts: i'm a bit concerned about some of the concepts, I mean i'm just repeating myself to some extent, but i'm looking at something else here.
Nigel Roberts: i'm looking at the process overview which we're coming to below that the red document.
Nigel Roberts: Forgive me if i'm like depressing myself very well, but I disagree with what Patricia has just said in part and on a technical basis, I do not think that every CCTV manager automatically has standing.
Nigel Roberts: Right and the reason I say, that is, the issue is not whether you are a CC till the manager or not, the issue is whether or not the irs has made a decision.
Nigel Roberts: And if the irs has made a decision with which you are unhappy, you should have the right to appeal that if the irs has made a mistake.
Nigel Roberts: For example, second thing is on the same subject under process overview on the second bullet point we have the IFO advises the claimant that its preliminary decision is to reject the request.
Nigel Roberts: Again I don't think that's right, I mean pretty much a lot of the time you would find that Sunday is appealing a request has been rejected.
Nigel Roberts: But I think the language used is not correct, I think the language needs to be in some circumstances, the eye on I might have accepted the request.
Nigel Roberts: But the claimant is still unhappy in the manner in which it was accepted, maybe the work conditions applied and so on, so at the end of the day, I just want.
Nigel Roberts: To focus this on a sort of more legalistic approach, in that the ayana has made a decision and the person affected by the person is affected by the decision and the person is unhappy with it, I don't see why we need to make this more algorithmic than that.
Bernard Turcotte: Thank you Rachel a bird.
Eberhard Lisse: hang on I had to find my mouse to unmute yourself myself.
Eberhard Lisse: Where are we coming from we come from the IFC 1591 which says if contending parties consult themselves can't agree on something, then.
Eberhard Lisse: We can appear.
Eberhard Lisse: We want to have a mechanism here for ccta demon just we do not want to make to use this group, to make it easier for non related parties to try and make it a vocation that's as simple as it is.
Eberhard Lisse: And if if that's the outcome of if that were to be the outcome of this I couldn't agree with it.
Bernard Turcotte: All right.
Bernard Turcotte: Nigel and then we'll close this stream off because obviously we're having some of us on this and I think we will need some time to think about it Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: Well, actually that's one of the points I was going to make, but I think we do need to think of it's on a fundamental level, but I don't think we're starting from.
Nigel Roberts: I think rfc 5091 is a good starting point and it is a historical stake in the ground, but I think what we're starting from.
Nigel Roberts: Is the principle that everything that I can does everything that I honor does must be subject to the principle of fundamental fairness and fundamental fairness requires checks and balances.
Nigel Roberts: And if checks and balances are available for some things and not others then it's not ready and fundamental fairness and equity, so I think we we all stop thinking about this as a computer program and think about it more as a system almost of constitutional formation thanks.
Stephen Deerhake: and art before you leave there's a question from Peter coke in the chat.
Bernard Turcotte: His failure to make a decision, applicable under this process actually if we go through the process Peter, we have a discussion with exactly that point so i'll ask you to wait until we get there.
Stephen Deerhake: Thank you, Bernard carry on Thank you.
Bernard Turcotte: Alright administrative objectives.
Bernard Turcotte: The same as before, low cost and 200,000 again that's not how we're splitting the cost, this is about.
Bernard Turcotte: What the total cost would look like fast less than 90 days to return a decision and minimize that old time required to review any specific, I have a decision which can be reviewed by the met this mechanism and the comment, there is this, this is to ensure that we have.
Bernard Turcotte: Were supporting automatic consolidation.
Bernard Turcotte: OK, now the process overview.
Bernard Turcotte: The first part should be fairly straightforward the claimant has made a valid request concerning and CC dld to the iPhone the iPhone buys the claim that its preliminary decision is to reject the request, as we have said we're calling this a preliminary decision because we're asking.
Bernard Turcotte: The Ai di Fo to give it 30 days for someone to decide if they're going to appeal or not, the claim and submits an application for an independent advice review.
Bernard Turcotte: To the independent advice administrator within the specified deadline of 30 days Nigel your hand is still up or do you have a comment.
Nigel Roberts: know, obviously.
Nigel Roberts: Sorry okay.
Nigel Roberts: Thank you again.
Bernard Turcotte: The administrator will notify the iPhone than an application for review has been made for a specific preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: This notice to the ufo will require that the iPhone not take any further action with respect to the preliminary decision until advice, otherwise by the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: So just to be clear at this point the application for independent device has not been accepted, but has been made so we're avoiding a boundary condition if you will, by the administrator advising the io that there is an application that has been made, and so the stay on the.
Bernard Turcotte: preliminary decision is on.
Bernard Turcotte: The administer the administrator evaluates if the application for review meets the basic requirements for approval.
Bernard Turcotte: The administrator may work with the claimant to correct any technical deficiencies, as part of the approval process pretty much as we talked about.
Bernard Turcotte: In previous meetings, if the administrator rejects the application for review and, as we said, the conditions that the administrator will be responsible for looking at we've already.
Bernard Turcotte: spelled out some of them and their binary either you meet the requirement, or you don't.
Bernard Turcotte: The administrator notifies the iPhone that the application has been rejected, and that the iPhone may proceed with processing the preliminary decision that claim it may submit a new application for review if still within the specified deadlines.
Bernard Turcotte: We could to hear Ellen.
Allan Macgillivray: Yes, I just want to go back to the first point Bernie Okay, the word valid request um I guess we're going to have to define that if we're going to use the word but seeing the structure here.
Allan Macgillivray: Do we need the word valid, because the administrator can render a judgment as to the validity of the request so i'm just wondering where we are on things.
Bernard Turcotte: Well, as I said, we've actually started listing two.
Bernard Turcotte: Criteria, we had a fair number of them in the previous version of this document, and we can look at adjusting the language if there's an issue there.
Bernard Turcotte: Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: yeah thanks Bernie I can I just put a stand up a little note by the side of the road here for this i'm having a problem with the word preliminary as i'm reading this further.
Nigel Roberts: I think the word preliminary is maybe not the best word We could be using because the word preliminary to me implies or we're making this decision now, but we could make a completely different decision later.
Nigel Roberts: I think perhaps a word like provisional may be better, but I just love it I don't want to discuss this now, but I just love.
Bernard Turcotte: Good i'm glad.
Bernard Turcotte: i'm not wet to preliminary it was a placeholder so.
Bernard Turcotte: If you feel.
Bernard Turcotte: happy with provisional I think there are fairly.
Nigel Roberts: Close in my mind.
Nigel Roberts: not proposing this as a definitive alternative I just think that maybe this is an area where a little bit of tweaking could just remove some.
Bernard Turcotte: potential is going to be a lot of tweaking this is.
Bernard Turcotte: All right, so, as I say.
Not web anything here.
Bernard Turcotte: Where were we the administrator rejects the application all right, if the administrator accepts the application next page please Kimberly.
Bernard Turcotte: The administrator will notify the iPhone that the application has been accepted and that the io will.
Bernard Turcotte: not make any further not take any further action with respect to the preliminary decision until advised otherwise by the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: yeah they're all relevant material pertaining to the preliminary decision and communicated to the administrator within seven days of the notice by the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: Now i've got a comment there, I have no idea of seven days is reasonable i'm not asking Kim to decide that right now but we're certainly that's a placeholder which obviously we will have to discuss with Kim to see if it makes sense.
Bernard Turcotte: Are we good to this point.
Bernard Turcotte: looks like Nigel your hands still up.
Bernard Turcotte: administrator will require the parties to each select the panelists from the list of certified panelists and notify it of their choices, the administrator will then confirm that these panelists are available and i'm conflicted with respect to the parties and this review.
Bernard Turcotte: The administrator will require that the two panelists select the third from the list of certified panels, the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: will then confirm that this panel, this is available and then conflicted with respect to the parties in this review, Stephen.
Bernard Turcotte: you're muted.
Stephen Deerhake: So I am I, we got a couple comments here in from Patricia show in the chat i'm not sure if they you want to address them now or down the road, but I just want to make you aware that Thank you.
Bernard Turcotte: I think the fundamental fairness.
Bernard Turcotte: went back to the discussion of what Nigel was saying and.
Stephen Deerhake: contestant I thought to.
Bernard Turcotte: And contested decision i'm not sure what that refers to Patricia.
Patricio Poblete: they're not the for what you call preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay, yes I get it.
Patricio Poblete: Yes, I do called.
Patricio Poblete: What was it.
Bernard Turcotte: well.
Bernard Turcotte: preliminary decision yet, the point is we're not sure it's going to be contested yet.
Bernard Turcotte: Which is why, but again we're not doing the words.
Bernard Turcotte: The final word smithing here.
Patricio Poblete: Why should I suppose well since we were talking about this review request, I thought it was a contested decision but anyway let's let's move on.
Bernard Turcotte: Yes, Okay, thank you.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay, so no problem selection the panelists the administrator will post the relevant information regarding the case on its public website.
Bernard Turcotte: Relevant again, we know that there are privacy concerns there are all sorts of sensitivity issues around this and we have to balance this.
Bernard Turcotte: With.
Bernard Turcotte: At least some transparency and i'll be glad to take comments on this, what i'm saying is minimally one would assume that include.
Bernard Turcotte: Who, the claim it is it's representative and the panelists, I think, as a minimum, and we do understand that in some cases, especially delegation it gets really tricky if you're going to try and post some more information.
Bernard Turcotte: So if people will have any thoughts right now i'll be glad to hear them if not let's think about it, and we will we will certainly get back to this.
Bernard Turcotte: Alright, not seeing anything Okay, the panel is convened and considers the case, the administrator will distribute the relevant material to the panelists and act as a project manager, for their work.
Bernard Turcotte: In administrator will review the panelists advice with them to ensure it meets all the requirements are such advice, we will develop a list of what is required that's not done yet.
Bernard Turcotte: The panelists will communicate their final advice to the administrator we will notify the claim at the end if that the review has issued its advice.
Bernard Turcotte: And I haven't brackets there, but the review process is not yet completed me and that note is there just to remind us that the iPhone is not yet free to continue processing its preliminary decision wording to be adjusted.
Bernard Turcotte: If the panel find significant issues with the preliminary decision, the administrator will request that the I Fo advise it within 30 days, what action they will take with respect to the independent advice.
Bernard Turcotte: And i've got a note there, what happens if they got respond in that timeline the administrator can write to the icon CEO and the board requesting the I respect his commitment to this process.
Bernard Turcotte: Just something to think about we'd like to avoid coming up to a corner cases and not having thought about them so definitely something to just keep a note to cell phone that one.
Bernard Turcotte: Now.
Bernard Turcotte: This is where it got interesting note regarding planning preliminary decisions and complaining complying with panel advice.
Bernard Turcotte: luminary decisions are essentially binary if the claimant does not give up on the process either the IFA will sometimes after numerous exchanges with the claimant over long periods of time, except the claimants request or rejected.
Bernard Turcotte: Obviously, if the if Oh, except the claimants application, there will be no need for review.
Bernard Turcotte: If the CFO rejects the claim its application and, if I remember correctly, from our past discussions with Kim on this is that.
Bernard Turcotte: The I Anna doesn't reject request too often.
Bernard Turcotte: But that the.
Bernard Turcotte: As they asked for clarifications and information to meet their requirements have been a request over time there's a number of these that drop off.
Bernard Turcotte: versus being rejected Kim i'm not asking for a formal commitment to this but it's my memory or correct on that.
Kim Davies: yeah that's basically, I mean we we always provide back to the applicant, what we see is deficient and ask them to cure it and at some point they might.
Kim Davies: Get frustrated with the process or realize that they're not eligible, and then they just sort of go away, but we don't give them an emphatic no but we just advise them what we think is sufficient okay.
Bernard Turcotte: All right, and that plays back.
Bernard Turcotte: To our discussion, we were having earlier withstanding.
Bernard Turcotte: The claim and can submit a request for review.
Bernard Turcotte: That is, if the if all rejected, but you know again rejections are rare.
Bernard Turcotte: In cases where review occurs and the panel finds there were significant issues, the ICO really only has three options versus such advice given.
Bernard Turcotte: The preliminary decision is binary you cannot partially transfer responsibility for a CCP led to a new manager.
Bernard Turcotte: one.
Bernard Turcotte: Accept the advice from the panel and grant the claimants original request.
Bernard Turcotte: To accept the advice from the panel and say it will completely redo the evaluation process for the claim its original request.
Bernard Turcotte: and
Bernard Turcotte: The logic there just to be clear is that.
Bernard Turcotte: The panel may find some significant deficiencies and it's advice.
Bernard Turcotte: The iPhone may look at this and say.
Bernard Turcotte: Yes, Okay, there were some significant issues, but if we correct those we don't believe it will change our decision So here we go there's that option, if you will, which is the middle ground.
Bernard Turcotte: And or three refuse to accept the panel's advice.
Bernard Turcotte: Now, in the past, we have said, we should not allow appeals until the io has made a decision regarding request.
Bernard Turcotte: However, given the io puts no deadline for completing delegations and transfers other preliminary decisions already have deadlines, such as the extension for the retirement.
Bernard Turcotte: Or are initiated by the pho revocation retirement of a non ISO 3166 two letter Latin code or the retirement policy, this could be used to essentially Blocker request, without having to officially rejected, so this goes to peter's point.
Bernard Turcotte: As such, for delegations and transfers, at least until such time as the iPhone includes the deadline for processing these, it would seem logical to allow for a review of these.
Bernard Turcotte: On the grounds that the iPhone is not properly following its procedures and applying these fairly.
Bernard Turcotte: However, the best way to deal with this issue would be for the io to put a deadline on processing these requests which were do we require them to only accept or reject them and not allow for these to be cancel for being incomplete.
Bernard Turcotte: Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: yeah thanks Bernie that is actually a model year.
Nigel Roberts: which I can provide more details on into course that's used within.
Nigel Roberts: England and Wales, at least i'm not sure about Scotland.
Bernard Turcotte: On amateur about Scotland.
Nigel Roberts: In respect of whether it's just the different jurisdictions, you see.
Nigel Roberts: In respect of what we call planning application zoning matters.
Nigel Roberts: If you want to build a new house or make changes to a house or something like that, and the way it works as we've been through this in England is that if you make a planning application, you make it to the relevant public authority which is usually the.
Nigel Roberts: The local council, as we call it.
Nigel Roberts: And the local council has to make a decision on your application, but it doesn't if there's nothing forcing it to so you then have a right to appeal it if your application is turned down.
Nigel Roberts: Or if, and this is the expression, the authority fails to determine the application within a period and that period is eight weeks so we don't have a timeline here, where the authority must make a decision.
Nigel Roberts: But you have a timeline whereby if they do not make a decision within that time your right to file your appeal to the national government comes into play.
Nigel Roberts: it's a little bit subtle here, but there is actually a big difference between saying the IFO must reply within eight weeks or the IFO.
Nigel Roberts: If it does not reply within eight weeks the the right to the file the appeal becomes becomes live.
Bernard Turcotte: Does that mathematic yeah I think we're heading for the same place a good good suggestion Nigel.
Bernard Turcotte: I really think this is just a.
Bernard Turcotte: The general heading of what we're trying to do here and, again, this is not a final language but I what i'm getting i'm not seeing any objections here is that.
Bernard Turcotte: we're we're on the right track, and we have to finesse the language, and if there is language available.
Nigel Roberts: yeah I think right.
Nigel Roberts: right track is the writing expression, it does, however, so we have to be quite careful how we craft it, it does however reef remove a tool from kim's toolbox, in other words, should we say creative in action.
Nigel Roberts: No, no, no.
Bernard Turcotte: No, no, I.
Bernard Turcotte: Like perfectly agree.
Bernard Turcotte: It is as Kim has noted, there are few rejections and most people who are making requests who cannot meet the requirements just eventually get tired, as opposed to getting a note from the AFL CIO.
Bernard Turcotte: So Peter.
Bernard Turcotte: Does that.
Bernard Turcotte: Discussion respond to your questions.
Peter Koch: Yes, he does thanks Bernie.
Bernard Turcotte: Okay, great Thank you Peter.
Bernard Turcotte: All right, any other comments before we leave this reflection of mine on this.
Stephen Deerhake: I think we're good.
Bernard Turcotte: All right, great.
Bernard Turcotte: So we're heading in the right direction, it.
Bernard Turcotte: seems all right.
Bernard Turcotte: If the iPhone advises the administrator that it accepts the independent advice and that it will change its preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: It will have 30 days to produce a final decision from the time it is advised by the administrator and communicated to the administrator the administrator will analyze the final decision.
Bernard Turcotte: If the administrator concludes that the iPhone accepts the claimants original request the administrator will notify the claimant of this and notify the iPhone that it may proceed the processing the final decision and that it will reimburse the claimants fees for the review.
Bernard Turcotte: So.
Bernard Turcotte: Basically, again there's that note down if the decision timeline is not respected here we're saying once.
Bernard Turcotte: The panel has made a decision and that it has been communicated to the ufo the administrator tells the iPhone it's got 30 days to figure out what it wants to do as per the three choices it can either look at this and say oh yeah we we messed up and we will accept the request.
Bernard Turcotte: We messed up but we don't think it's going to change the thing and we will go with redoing it.
Bernard Turcotte: Or we will simply reject the advice.
Bernard Turcotte: If Of course they reject the advice and there's significant significant issues, it will be included any recommendation, the iPhone makes to the board so let's walk through that so we've looked at option A now option B if.
Bernard Turcotte: It accepts the independent advice, but will opt.
Bernard Turcotte: To sorry some words there I copy pasted wrong redo the evaluation of the claimants request from the beginning and reimburse the claimants fees for the review.
Bernard Turcotte: Once completed it will notify the claim, and then the administrator of it's updated preliminary decision which will be analyzed by the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: If the administrator concludes that the io accepts the claim its original request the administrator will notify the placement of this and notify the iPhone that it may proceed with processing the updated preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: And that shouldn't be preliminary decision, the update that preliminary sorry that's correct.
Bernard Turcotte: The if if the if oh rejects the claimants original request in this updated preliminary decision, the administrator will notify the claimant that this and advise it.
Bernard Turcotte: And here we go.
Bernard Turcotte: That it has 30 days, that is, the claimant as 30 days, if it wishes to request an independent advice on this preliminary on this updated preliminary decision that no cost to it so here we're saying, right up front.
Bernard Turcotte: If the if Joe is going with the redo option it's committing upfront.
Bernard Turcotte: To paying for a second review, if that is required.
Bernard Turcotte: So if the claimant decides to request an independent advice review.
Bernard Turcotte: is basically we start from scratch, a new process, a new panel we look at this again.
Bernard Turcotte: If the claimant decides not to request an independent advice review or fails to notify the administrator within the 30 day deadline, the administrator will notify the iPhone that it may proceed with processing the updated preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: If the iPhone rejects the independent advice, the administrator will advise the claimant and ensure that the independent advice is properly included to be determined in consultation with the CFO in any recommendation di n Fo makes regarding this case.
Bernard Turcotte: And here we're using i'm using language regarding this case, so we don't want to tie this to.
Bernard Turcotte: The updated decision or preliminary decision or whatever else to lock ourselves in if the iPhone is going to make a recommendation to the board regarding a case, regardless of.
Bernard Turcotte: What preliminary or updated decision has been, it has to include the panel's information if it rejects the independent advice.
Bernard Turcotte: And so, if the if auto fail, according to the instructor to properly include the independent advice and his recommendation to the board the administrator shall communicate this to the board directly.
Bernard Turcotte: And finally.
Bernard Turcotte: One would hope that this is the.
Bernard Turcotte: usual outcome if the planet finds no significant issues with the preliminary decision, the administrator will notify the claimant and the iPhone that it may proceed with processing the preliminary decision.
Bernard Turcotte: and
Bernard Turcotte: thoughts comments, etc.
Kim Davies: So I just have a bit of a Meta question I guess you could say um there's various deadlines for this document about when happens what, but I think a lot of the.
Kim Davies: steps involved the the administrator advising climate or advising the the iPhone etc of what to do next in the person's.
Kim Davies: What happens if the administrator is not doing that in a timely fashion, does that does that stole the process indefinitely until the administrator communicates that or should should that be sort of self evident from this policy that wants this this time has elapsed.
Kim Davies: That that should be kept coming to force I guess.
Kim Davies: I can answer, but something to consider.
Bernard Turcotte: No, no, I I understand that's a very valid question, I think, as we go through this when we're developing the responsibilities of the administrator they will be oversight of the administrator and part of what we're talking about posting on the website is exactly.
Bernard Turcotte: Those notices, I think, to make sure that that's clear and transparent, and if the administrator is not meeting those deadlines, then obviously there has to be repercussions, to the administrator but I completely agree with you.
Bernard Turcotte: Right now we're using your approach it's self evident that the administrator has to do that and that there will be oversight.
Bernard Turcotte: Does that answer your question Kim.
Kim Davies: I suspect sorry obviously i'm loving my.
Bernard Turcotte: devils in the details, yes, I understand, like set that i'm not asking for a blanket approval at this point i'm just saying yes, I agree with you and we'll have to do that Nigel.
Nigel Roberts: yep thanks, since I put my hand up, of course.
Nigel Roberts: i've got some comments on what kim's just said, but let me, let me say first of all, what it was that I was going to say first of all I just like to highlight Bernie how much.
Nigel Roberts: effort and results that you have.
Nigel Roberts: and hard work you've put into into putting this together, I think I think it's a great piece of work, and you know I think the.
Nigel Roberts: Our natural tendency to wordsmith and fiddle with it is actually probably a a mark of respect and and gratitude, rather than than complaints I think this is fantastic place to work Bernie.
Bernard Turcotte: Thank you and i've written enough of these that I understand if people are only arguing about the word smithing we're doing very well with the general objectives.
Nigel Roberts: Thanks and if I, if I might take the opportunity, just to react to a couple of things in in what Kim said.
Nigel Roberts: First of all, idly i'm just wondering whether or not we're allowed to use the word matter anymore.
Bernard Turcotte: I was gonna make that comment.
Nigel Roberts: Peter.
Stephen Deerhake: yeah I was.
Bernard Turcotte: here's the interruption I apologize.
Stephen Deerhake: yeah all right.
Stephen Deerhake: Thank you from my bank card entries.
Nigel Roberts: On a more practical level i'm.
Nigel Roberts: The administrator.
Nigel Roberts: I mean we're sort of looking a little bit to where we fleshes out.
Nigel Roberts: In a bit more detail, but the administrator is going to probably be I can staff right.
Nigel Roberts: So my thinking is and forgive me if i'm kind of looking into a little bit round the corner when we haven't fleshes out yet.
Nigel Roberts: But my my thinking is that this is not part of the carve out in the I can buy laws, because it's an administrative role relating to review rather than an actual thing relating to a CC to the management chip but bear with me.
Nigel Roberts: And therefore, all the existing accountability mechanisms such as reconsideration requests apply in order to convince a dilatory or recalcitrant administrator to do the damn job.
Stephen Deerhake: i'm.
Stephen Deerhake: already hearing that's.
Nigel Roberts: really good that next time round.
Bernard Turcotte: No, I will just put in a comment with that the new.
Bernard Turcotte: rules of the road and Nigel is quite right include action and inaction by the staff and no longer just action by the board and therefore.
Bernard Turcotte: If, as Nigel has said this person is hired by I can they would be considered staff and then would be automatically subject to those rules.
Nigel Roberts: yeah I did get something out to being Chair of the ricoh.
Bernard Turcotte: Excellent.
Thanks.
Bernard Turcotte: Oh that's it oh.
Nigel Roberts: I thought there was more.
Stephen Deerhake: Ah, thank you Bernie carry on.
well.
Stephen Deerhake: deeper.
Bernard Turcotte: There were there.
Bernard Turcotte: I you know the comments we've had I think are great.
Bernard Turcotte: What i'm taking away from this is.
Bernard Turcotte: The general thrust of this, and most of the High Level details are fine we've got.
Bernard Turcotte: A whole bunch of details to work out, we know this, we will work on that.
Bernard Turcotte: and
Bernard Turcotte: Our elephant in the room is the standing discussion, and I think we will have to go.
Bernard Turcotte: Back to that and make sure we understand where we are with that I will continue to think about that and see where we go if we can square the circle, as it were.
Bernard Turcotte: With this will work with Bart and relevant people I will update this per our discussions.
Bernard Turcotte: and
Bernard Turcotte: The next pass should be a lot quicker.
Bernard Turcotte: and
Bernard Turcotte: Once we we finish hammering out this process and the standing issue, then I think it's worth going into back into a full document and looking at some of the.
Bernard Turcotte: More consequential details there's a lot of little nitpicking, as we have said, we really have to figure out the things about the administrator.
Bernard Turcotte: I have promised you some text on what a conflict of interest is i've actually developed that i've included it in another document, and so we will have a look at that etc so.
Bernard Turcotte: I will take it as such will prep an x version of the document for our next call and with that I will return to to Stephen.
Stephen Deerhake: Thank you, Bernard, thank you for that presentation, I want to thank everybody for their questions and comments I thought it was a very good session I think we're making some solid progress.
Stephen Deerhake: we're not there yet.
Stephen Deerhake: But we are.
Stephen Deerhake: we're we're driving down the road which is you know great i'm happy about that.
Stephen Deerhake: I guess Thank you cam for putting up the.
Stephen Deerhake: Agenda is there any other business that anybody wishes to bring up.
Stephen Deerhake: As I usually say I don't see a waggle a hands I don't think I ever have actually.
Stephen Deerhake: So let's move on to this question of next meetings we've got one scheduled for the eighth of December.
Stephen Deerhake: Excuse me, and one scheduled for the 22nd of December, which is bumping up against Christmas.
Stephen Deerhake: i'm not sure what kind of a turnout, we might get for that meeting.
Stephen Deerhake: But we're going to leave it on the schedule and I think, maybe we'll discuss.
Stephen Deerhake: The viability of that meeting from a quorum standpoint on our meeting of the eighth I think that's.
Stephen Deerhake: Probably where we're going to go with that 22nd December meeting.
Stephen Deerhake: Just hope everybody can make the upcoming call.
Stephen Deerhake: We had a really good turnout today and I want to thank everybody for your participation.
Stephen Deerhake: And lastly, for those you celebrating thanksgiving tomorrow, have a great holiday and don't overcook your Turkey that's a no no.
Stephen Deerhake: that's it for me, I want to thank all of you for attending and especially want to thank you okay and Bart as per usual for being here, out of band and giving up their evening.
Stephen Deerhake: And, of course, thanks to Kimberly and and Bernard and particularly for Bernard and all that word smithing and he's done.
Stephen Deerhake: So with that, I think all declare this meeting a.
iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini: journey to yeah I think.
iPad (27)Vanda Scartezini: It all happy thanksgiving I need to leave.
Stephen Deerhake: Thank you appreciate it thanks for being here and so Kimberly I think you can stop the recording as usual stay safe everybody, and thank you all and goodbye for now.
So.