Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the RFP3 on 30 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 Action Items Request/Action: ccTLD members and participants CWG to come up with a consistent position on IAP, re it scope, mandate, Grounds for Appeal Notes Roll Call Seun Audio only 1. IAP discussion * Basic agreements section: First section document as presented * Note: delegation - re-delegation ccTLD sensitive area. Specifics are outside scope of this WG. Agreed by ccTLD members and participants on the CWG * Martin Boyle (MB): How could an IAP without proper understanding of national situation, could make a sound decision. Brings in third party. Important part is bringing people together, to support the final outcome of the process. * If no substantial support for steps in the process, could be -> IAP role: was process followed and was documentation available * Paul Kane: a gTLD has a contract, appeal process may be needed, to check whether contract has been applied properly. * For ccTLD this is different: diverse of community, no relation with ICANN. * GS, Appealing decision of court in a jurisdictions is out of scope of IAP. * PK: Appeal process may make process complicated * Alan Greenberg: ccTLDs present at the meeting suggested IAP. Topic IAP in delegation and re-delegation of ccTLD matters, not to be discussed in this group. * Staffan Jonson: Diversity of ccTLDs , brings complexity. IANA Function operator should not get involved in national disputes * MB: Could see a role for IAP, but not as evolved in the discussion. This role to be limited to process issues * Other case where Registry makes a mistake, is potentially re-delegated may want to appeal * Jonathan Robinson: Keep trail simple an delimited to IANA Function, where after the CCWG may step in. Request/Action: ccTLD members and participants CWG to come up with a consistent position on IAP, re it scope, mandate, Grounds for Appeal GNSO/gTLD related IAP Should actual decision be under IAP, or limited to question that process is followed AG: Remit of CWG should point to applicable approved policies. Re-delegation done under contract. Contracts include an arbitration clause. More important to focus on first point AG: Review process of process is around Board decisions. Re-delegation gTLD ruled by contract. Main point: If IAP was introduced mistakenly, allow it to be withdrawn. Suggestion GS: further need, scope of IAP among gTLD related part of CWG, in particular Grounds for appeal Section Key Issues and Open Questions No Comments on list of issues. Questions are re-arranging issues discussed previous section Ground for Appeal No Comments on points raised in paper Standing: who can appeal Jonathan Robinson: survey result , reflect that survey was done in a vacuum. The document is more fleshed out Binding Nature of decision Seems strongly supported according to survey Structure and Process Greg Shatan: Setting up substantive rules is difficult (based on experience new gTLD process). Quality of substantive rules, determines consistency of outcome. Existence of IAP No comments 2. Alternative "external Trust" Model * GS: Presentation Alternative John Poole document * GS Summary: replacement of Contract Co by 'Trust". Board of Trustee <- MRT * AG: Do not understand concept of incorporating Board of Trustees. * John Poole: no need to be incorporated, but may want to in order to avoid personal liabilities of Board of Trustee members. Reference to court case * (America's Cup) , illuminating in international context. It is a viable option. * John Poole , viewpoint registrant: interpretation of NTIA announcement. 1. historic stewards role, external counter part of ICANN, external role RZM, authorization. NTIA question, come up with proposal to replace NTIA role * Internal solution will abolish role of NTIA * Contract Co. will expand role * Look at how role of NTIA can be replaced. Stress Test: what is worst scenario if take away external accountability. What will happen if ICANN becomes insolvent as a result of court judgement? Avri Doria: Notion of association could be incorporated. The delegates could be on the Board of Trustee. Notion of association being incorporated. Appreciation of model AG: Rules around Trust are enforceable by court. Does not understand difference between "internal" and external" trust GS: "external trust": MS will contract with ICANN to perform IANA Function "internal" trust , no contract in place AG: in Auda proposal ( internal trust). Guardian , same role as "board of trustee" in external trust model -> MRT John Poole: CSC, MRT, IAP all could be moved internal, or external What is only replaced is role of NTIA, through external trust. Relationships do not change, Terms of Trust rule the board of trustees and relation ruled through the trust, under jurisdiction of state trust is set-up. Final remarks: large parallel between MRT and Board of Trustees (external). Next call: RFP 3 21.00 UTC Monday 02 Feb (Final call before Singapore) GS: suggestions how to use this call? *
