Page History

...

Proposed Agenda: 

1. Roll Call
2. Welcome/ recap from day #1/ objective of call #3
3. Review survey 2 (Contract Co. & IAP)

Notes Call #3

...

1. Roll Call

...

Taking roll call from Adobe Connect room.

...

 

Only on audio: No one

 

2. Welcome

...

Recap from day#1:

• Good progress made - taking input from the surveys to move forward in the conversations
• Minute silence in recognition of events in Paris, France and other world events

...

• Answer depends on whether MRT is internal or external to ICANN. 
• Avri: there should be a stakeholder process to do it, but it does not need to be difficult. --> Existence of a proper process is an appropriate "difficulty"  

 

3. Review Survey 2

...

Contract Co - Green Items , areas of convergence(unless marked differently)

...

• There should be standard procedures for catching IANA process errors before resorting to an appeals process. (question 1)
• Existing arbitration providers should be used instead of creating a new body (question 2 - yellow)
• A mechanism for an affected party to appeal a decisioin relating to the Root Zone would be beneficial for Internet stakeholders and consumers (question 3 - yellow)
• Appeals should be managed differently, depending on whether the appeal involves a gTLD or a ccTLD (question 4)
• Terms of reference for the IAP and details on the compositioin of the panel should be defined (question 5)
• The IAP component of the IANA CWG proposal is crucial, and its location outside of both ICANN And the IANA oversight function is necessary (question 6 - yellow)
• An appeal mechanism is not needed (question 9 - yellow in the negative - disagreement)
• The ground for an appeal should be limited to whether or not relevant policy was followed (question 10 - yellow). Need to define what 'policy' means - appeals should be directed at decision-maker not IANA Function which performs clerical function. But alslo need to foresee situation in which IANA doesn't do anything or delaying making certain changes. 
• The appeals process should only challenge whether established policies have been properly applied or adhered to by the IANA Functions Operator. It should not evaluate the merits of such policies. (question 12 - yellow)
• The appeals process should be binding on the IANA Functions Operator (question 13)
• Standing to file appeals should be defined (question 17)
• gTLD REgistry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delegatioin decisions to which they are a party that they believe are contrary to approved gTLD policy (question 18)
• ccTLD registry operators should have standing to appeal delegation and re-delectation decisions to which they are party that they believe are contrary to applicable laws and/or applicable approved ccTLD policy (question 20)
• The ccNSO or GNSO, as applicable, should have standing to appeal implementation of any approved policies relating to delegation of ccTLDs or gTLDs as applicable that they believe are inconsistent with those policies (question 22 - yellow). 
• Governments should have standing to appeal ccTLD delegation or re-delegation decisions that they believe are contrary to applicable laws only where that country's ccTLD is involved (question 24 - yellow). May need to measure this question and others against Framework of Interpretation WG work as it may already have been addressed there. 

Transcript

TranscriptThe transcript will be posted shortly. 

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5a1r4x3i4d/

The audio recording is available here:

Documents Presented

3.CSC_MRT Summary_Results.pdf

6.Contract_Co_IAP_Summary_Results.pdf

Chat Transcript

The There was an error in saving the chat transcript was not properly saved for this meeting.