URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure

[Buddha Halder]

Hi,
I also support signing.
Please add my name as well.

Dr. Buddhadeb Halder, PhD (ICT and Law).

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:26 PM shahzad ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk>
wrote:

> Kindly add the endorsement of Bytes For All, Pakistan as well.
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Shahzad
>
>
> --
> Shahzad Ahmad
> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan
> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060
> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
>
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Ade Bo <adebodea at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
> I also support signing
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET> wrote:
>
> I support us signing.
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We received this from Malcolm. An issue that we were concerned and said in
> our public comment. Perhaps we can add our name quickly?
>
>
>
>
>
> As you may know, the IRP Implementation Oversight Team last week adopted
> "Interim Rules of Procedure" that include a deadline for filing of no
> later than 12 months after ICANN's action (rather than after anyone is
> affected by the action complained about).
>
> I have just been told that these rules have been sent to the Board for
> approval on Thursday.
>
> You will recall that this will deprive many potential claimants of the
> right to bring IRP cases, simply because ICANN's action is not
> implemented for 12 months and so nobody ever acquired the right to
> challenge it before the deadline expired.
>
> Each of your constituencies (SG, for NCSG) wrote to oppose the adoption
> of this "right of repose" for ICANN in the first public consultation,
> and each of you (except IPC) wrote to welcome the team's decision to
> reverse itself in the public consultation August just passed.
>
> I therefore assume you are as concerned as I am that the IOT has now put
> up these "Interim Rules" for approval, at ICANN Legal's request: the
> opposite of what was promised in the recent consultation!
>
> While the IOT currently plans to "continue these discussions" once the
> interim rules are adopted, there must be a real risk that these "interim
> rules" become permanent, if only because ICANN and the Chair refuse to
> join a consensus to change them.
>
> Most Board members have no clue this is controversial (or even that it's
> scheduled), and unless we intervene strongly it is likely to be nodded
> through on the consent agenda on Thursday. However, I have spoken to
> Matthew and Avri, so they are ready (and I believe supportive) should
> Cherine ask them if this should be deferred.
>
> I have drafted a letter to Cherine warning him that these rules are
> incompatible with the Bylaws (see attached).
>
> Will you CO-SIGN this letter on behalf of your constituency?
>
>
> P.S. This needs to go out urgently if it is to persuade the Board to
> drop this from the consent agenda. As tomorrow (Tues) is constituency
> day, I need your answer by the 5pm tomorrow.
>
> --
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> <Letter to ICANN Board on IRP Interim Rules of Procedure 2018-10-22 draft
> 1.docx>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181023/73828027/attachment.htm>