Changes

[[RFC 1591]], as interpreted by the [[Framework of Interpretation]] Working Group, states that there should be some right to appeal decisions involving the revocation of ccTLDs: <ref name="rfc">[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 IETF.org - RFC 1591]</ref> <ref name="foi">[http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf ccNSO - FOI Working Group Final Report], October 7, 2014 (PDF)</ref>

[[RFC 1591]], as interpreted by the [[Framework of Interpretation]] Working Group, states that there should be some right to appeal decisions involving the revocation of ccTLDs: <ref name="rfc">[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 IETF.org - RFC 1591]</ref> <ref name="foi">[http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf ccNSO - FOI Working Group Final Report], October 7, 2014 (PDF)</ref>

During the [[IANA Stewardship Transition]], a proposal was introduced for the creation of an appeal mechanism that would have applied to decisions regarding ccTLD delegation and redelegations.<ref name="cwgstew">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53779816/FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1434047705000&api=v2 CWG-Stewardship Final Report], Annex O, June 11, 2015</ref> The Stewardship Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) attempted to survey ccTLD managers regarding the proposal, but did not receive enough responses to draw conclusions regarding the desirability of the proposed appeals mechanism.<ref name="cwgstew" /> Although the overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that there needed to be some mechanism to appeal, there was not a similar level of support for the specific proposal. In addition, only 28 survey responses were received.<ref name="cwgstew" /> The CWG-Stewardship's final report noted: "Questions designed to probe the level of consensus on the parameters of such an appeal mechanism (see Q.5 – Q.9) elicited no consensus..."<ref name="cwgstew" /> As a result, the the [[Independent Review Panel]] was proposed, explicitly excluding matters related to ccTLDs:

During the [[IANA Functions Stewardship Transition]], a proposal was introduced for the creation of an appeal mechanism that would have applied to decisions regarding ccTLD delegation and redelegations.<ref name="cwgstew">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53779816/FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1434047705000&api=v2 CWG-Stewardship Final Report], Annex O, June 11, 2015</ref> The Stewardship Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship) attempted to survey ccTLD managers regarding the proposal, but did not receive enough responses to draw conclusions regarding the desirability of the proposed appeals mechanism.<ref name="cwgstew" /> Although the overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that there needed to be some mechanism to appeal, there was not a similar level of support for the specific proposal. In addition, only 28 survey responses were received.<ref name="cwgstew" /> The CWG-Stewardship's final report noted: "Questions designed to probe the level of consensus on the parameters of such an appeal mechanism (see Q.5 – Q.9) elicited no consensus..."<ref name="cwgstew" /> As a result, the [[Independent Review Panel]] was proposed, explicitly excluding matters related to ccTLDs:

<blockquote>An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions.

<blockquote>An appeal mechanism, for example in the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the IANA functions.

For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.<ref name="cwgstew" /></blockquote>

For example, direct customers with non-remediated issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD community post-transition.<ref name="cwgstew" /></blockquote>

In subsequent ICANN meetings, the ccNSO membership identified the importance of establishing a review mechanism, particularly in light of the IANA Stewardship Transition.<ref name="charter">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126421860/Charter%20Working%20Group%20Review%20Mechanism%20of%20ccTLDs.pdf WG-RM Charter], March 15, 2017</ref> In June 2016, the [[ccNSO Council]] resolved to request an issue report on the subject, and in December 2016, the council resolved to draft charters for working groups on a review mechanism and [[ccNSO Policy Development Process - Retirement|a policy of retirement of ccTLDs]].<ref name="issues">[https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2017-05/issue-report-pdp-rrm-10apr17-en.pdf ccNSO Issue Report, PDP Retirement & Review Mechanism], March 2017 (PDF)</ref> The working groups were established in spring of 2017. At that time, it was determined that the retirement policy development should be prioritized. As a result, the working group for the review mechanism PDP began work in March 2020.

In subsequent ICANN meetings, the ccNSO membership identified the importance of establishing a review mechanism, particularly in light of the IANA Stewardship Transition.<ref name="charter">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126421860/Charter%20Working%20Group%20Review%20Mechanism%20of%20ccTLDs.pdf WG-RM Charter], March 15, 2017</ref> In June 2016, the [[ccNSO Council]] resolved to request an issue report on the subject, and in December 2016, the council resolved to draft charters for working groups on a review mechanism and [[ccNSO Policy Development Process - Retirement|a policy of retirement of ccTLDs]].<ref name="issues">[https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2017-05/issue-report-pdp-rrm-10apr17-en.pdf ccNSO Issue Report, PDP Retirement & Review Mechanism], March 2017 (PDF)</ref> The working groups were established in spring of 2017. At that time, it was determined that retirement policy development should be prioritized. As a result, the working group for the review mechanism PDP began work in March 2020.

==Issues and Deliberations==

==Issues and Deliberations==