Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA IRP Informational Meeting that took place on 10 February @ 22:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/fgiAAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda 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 customers 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.
