Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call #78. The updated document is attached.

1. Discussed comments related to scope of IRP (paragraph 7)

a. Agreed to inclusion of PTI actions or inactions (CWG Requirement) with clarifications on :

i. Scope of appeal being restricted to naming

ii. Implementation group to check with CWG how best to achieve definition of standard of review (possibly through inclusion of PTI Bylaws / rules in the IRP standard of review)

iii. CWG dependency requires ability to ensure PTI compliance through IRP. Two alternative approaches available: (1) provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction or (2) obligate ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do so is covered by IRP.

b. Agreed to exclusion of protocol / parameter decisions (IAB comment – paragraph 18) with mention of existing appeals mechanisms for numbering and protocols / parameters for clarification

c. Agreed that challenge of expert panel decisions (Board concern / alternate suggestion) is limited to challenge of whether panel decision is consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws

d. Process for escalating denial of access to documents under DIDP to be developed as part of WS2 review of DIDP (Board concern ‘ alternate suggestion), with ultimate appeal through IRP. DIDP decisions alleged to be in violation of ICANN Bylaws may be challenged in IRP.

2. Empowered Community Legal fees (born by ICANN ?) in case of Community IRP (see paragraph 14 – following Steve del Bianco note in the chat)

3. Other comments and suggestions are provided as implementation details for Implement oversight group (see paragraph 37)

4. Agreement on carve-out language (modified as noted below): Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the ICANN Board’s adoption of the result(s) of a supporting organization’s policy development process (PDP), including a challenge to the policy itself, may be launched without the support of the supporting organization that developed such PDP or, in the case of joint PDPs, without the support of the supporting organizations that developed such PDP. NOTE: This language should also be included in (a) Community powers/Annex 4, (b) as a parenthetical statement at the end of the lead-in language in paragraph 69, just prior to bullets; (c) as a parenthetical in paragraph 117 of the draft proposal; and (d) paragraph 54 of Annex 02.

Third reading is planned for Thursday, 21 January.

Best regards

Mathieu, Thomas, León