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

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

• Transcript_CWG IRP Informational Meeting_10 February.docx
• Transcript_CWG IRP Informational Meeting_10 February.pdf

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

• CCWGV4-Annex 7-FinalDraftV0.6.pdf

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://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4Z7eBQ

  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