Attendees:
Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Greg Shatan, Jaap Akkerhuis, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Maarten Simon, Olivier Crepin-LeBlond, Paul Kane (9)
Participants: Allan MacGillivray, Becky Burr, Chris Disspain, Keith Davison, Leon Sanchez, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer, Suzanne Woolf, Wale Bakare (11)
Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Sharon Flanagan, Samantha Eisner
Staff: Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Marika Konings, Trang Nguyen
Apologies: Olga Cavalli
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Notes
IRP Informational Meeting -10 February 2016 @ 22:00 UTC
Purpose of the call: discuss the IRP section of the requirements / certification of CCWG-Accoutability work, considering that the CCWG report is in finalization stages.
Text from requirements letter (21 December):
Section 7, Conclusion: – As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the
CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN
to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach
by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach
would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions
or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions
would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amend.
Presentation by Becky Burr, lead author in CCWG-Accountability
Questions / Answers:
- If service complaints are not resolved through mediation, direct customers can bring an IRP. Should we limit the term? No, since we are looking to the
direct cutomers of PTI.
Suggested edit: Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): Para 8 of Annex 7 -- insert "of direct customers" after "ICANN Bylaws will provide that PTI service complaints"
- Standard: "material harm" -- CWG proposal was silent on this. Is this ok with CWG? No comments rom CWG.
- How does the IRP fit - either within or outside - the proposed escalation process outlined in the CWG propopsal? The IRP does not replace the existing
escalation processes, and both processes could happen. - Escalation processes in the CWG proposal come before the IRP.
- Is there a different between appealing to PTI or ICANN? In practice, no, since ICANN will have responsibility for performance of PTI.
- Does the IRP need to be embedded in the PTI Bylaws? The ICANN-PTI Contract can have a provision for PTI to abide by the IRP. Whether this provision is also in the Bylaws is a question for implememtation.
Are the CWG folks satisfied that the requirements are met? Is Sidley satisfied with the rationale provided, so that they can review their requirements letter?
CWG aims to sign-off by 18 Feb.
Transcript
Recordings
- Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7e9ilktdiz/
- MP3 recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/stewardship-transition/iana-irp-10feb16-en.mp3
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (2/10/2016 15:28) Good day all and welcome to the IRP Informational Meeting on Wednesday, 10 February @ 22:00 UTC!
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:58) Hi all
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (15:58) Hi all
Sabine Meyer: (16:00) hello everyone!
Lise Fuhr: (16:01) Hello
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:02) Same here too regarding delay in what is typed
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:02) It is an issue in Adobe - I have had it on several occurences today of the same problem
Sabine Meyer: (16:02) Oh, I indeed have that issue, too.
Greg Shatan: (16:02) Delay.
Greg Shatan: (16:03) No delay here!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:03) sometimes it recovers for a few minutes and then freezes...
Greg Shatan: (16:03) Now delay again.
Greg Shatan: (16:04) Lost Jonathan
Burr: (16:04) did we just lose Jonathan? back
Greg Shatan: (16:04) Now backa again.
Burr: (16:04) gone
Greg Shatan: (16:04) Gone again.
Greg Shatan: (16:04) We are cursed.
Burr: (16:04) gone again
matthew shears: (16:04) yep
Philip Corwin: (16:05) Same here. Back now
Grace Abuhamad: (16:05) We will get the letter up
Burr: (16:06) i guess that would be me
Grace Abuhamad: (16:07) Letter link is here: https://community.icann.org/x/65FlAw
Grace Abuhamad: (16:07) I'll post on AC if we come back to it
Jonathan Robinson: (16:08) Section 7 Conclusion is the key point.
Jonathan Robinson: (16:08) Conclusion – As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amend
Chris Disspain: (16:13) Greetings All...just to let you know I am on the call
Jonathan Robinson: (16:13) Hello Chris. Welcome.
Wale Bakare: (16:13) Hello everyone
matthew shears: (16:18) How does the IRP fit - either within or outside - the proposed escalation process outlined in the CWG propopsal?
Burr: (16:19) it is available at the end of the escalation process in the CWG
matthew shears: (16:20) after a decision of the SIFR?
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (16:20) what is the difference between materially harmed or materially affected ?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:20) It is separate from SIFR.
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:20) Meaning - both processes could happen
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:21) Materially harmed implies a negative -- vs an effect that could be positive
Grace Abuhamad: (16:21) @Sharon -- Can you give me the reference and the suggested edit that you would like to include? I
Burr: (16:21) that is clearly contemplated
Grace Abuhamad: (16:21) For the "direct customers" language
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (16:22) thanks Sharon
matthew shears: (16:22) @ Sharon - so could there be an escalation process underway at the same time as an IRP - for example on a service level agreement issue?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:22) Para 8 of Annex 7 -- insert "of direct customers" after "ICANN Bylaws will provide that PTI service complaints"
Grace Abuhamad: (16:23) Thank you
Paul Kane: (16:25) Thanks Becky for the clarification
Greg Shatan: (16:25) piano accompaniment!
Leon Sanchez: (16:25) nice piano
matthew shears: (16:25) very nice
matthew shears: (16:26) + 1 Becky - that would be a concern
Grace Abuhamad: (16:27) @Matt I think the difference depends on whether a registry pursues on its own or through groups. The escalation processes include going through the Councils.
Paul Kane: (16:27) ok thanks
matthew shears: (16:27) does that need to be made explicit?
Burr: (16:27) matthew, it is quite explicit that IRP is the end of the line
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (16:34) thanks Becky
matthew shears: (16:36) so once the issue gets to phase 2 it can be pursued either through IRP or through escalation through the CSC?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (16:36) thanks Becky this has all been very helpful...
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:37) Thanks to Becky for finding such an elegant solution
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): (16:37) Grace - None from me
Grace Abuhamad: (16:38) Thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (16:39) Thanks everyone... Especially thanks to Becky :-) talk again soon then.... Bye for now...
Lise Fuhr: (16:39) Thank you - good night from Brussels
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (16:39) Excellent
Greg Shatan: (16:39) Thanks!
Allan MacGillivray: (16:39) Bye all.
Martin Boyle, Nominet: (16:39) and well done Becky!
Avri Doria: (16:39) bye
Jaap Akkerhuis (SSAC): (16:39) Thanks all, bye
Maarten Simon, ccNSO: (16:39) Bye
Sabine Meyer: (16:39) Good bye everyone
Keith Davidson: (16:39) thanks very much and bye
