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

[Mueller, Milton L]

I strongly support co-signing

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of shahzad ahmad
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:56 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure

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<mailto:adebodea at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:


I also support signing

On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET<mailto:james at CYBERINVASION.NET>> wrote:

I support us signing.


On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto: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/ad090e8a/attachment.htm>