[Consultation] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues

[Rafik Dammak]

thanks all for your comments, that is really helpful.

Best,

Rafik


Le ven. 11 janv. 2019 à 03:09, Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> a écrit :

> I agree 100%.  If we cannot meet the bylaw requirements the right answer
> is to begin a process to change the bylaws – not for any part of the ICANN
> organization to unilaterally seek to waive them.  More to the point, I
> don’t think that bylaws provisions are “waivable.”  Without conformance to
> bylaws requirements, any subsequent action taken is illegitimate and likely
> subject to successful legal challenge
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Tomslin
> Samme-Nlar
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 9, 2019 4:55 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [Consultation] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>
>
>
> What I find strange is that by accepting the ccNSO proposal, we'll have a
> team that doesn't meet ICANN bylaws' requirements, performing a review in
> accordance with a scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws.
>
>
>
> I couldn't find the rationale behind the requirement of a third ccNSO
> representative not being a ccNSO ccTLD member, but I am of the opinion that
> if the membership of the IFR team doesn't respect the bylaws requirements,
> the credibility of their output might be undermined in the community.
>
> Cheers,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Thu., 10 Jan. 2019, 00:11 Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com wrote:
>
> I fully agree on this stand. It does not solve the immediate situation but
> do we always have someone immediately? Day after day I see Icann going into
> what I cannot imagine. Although things have started going way south some
> time back but I stand with ``James on this stand we need to be strong and
> not permit people playing around. If so why was a bylaws even put in place.
> We may as well be Mickey Mouse all the way through. Things are serious and
> we have to push for a respectful and strong stand and not play on this
> game. Next time another story will come up. It is a time to put stops and
> as we say checks and balances are important and it Becomes easy to play
> when you create precedence.
>
>
>
> We all know what happens once precedence happens we play it on and on.
> That is my thinking process. I rarely state my mind and thoughts being
> pointed fingers but we need to stop those plays please and respect what is
> laid down.
>
>
>
> `````else we do another shutdown for an imaginary wall
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2019, at 16:35, James Gannon <james at CYBERINVASION.NET> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an important message, and we need to take a very strong stand here
> that the bylaws must be implemented as written, the ccNSO needs to fulfil
> its bylaws mandate and staff the IFR correctly.
>
> We cannot continue to undermine the accountability mechanisms we created
> and agreed to during the IANA strwardship as we already have done with the
> AoC reviews. I hope this can be passed along to our councillors.
>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2019, at 13:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am sharing here a communication sent by ICANN GDD asking from community
> input regarding 2 issues raised with the IANA Naming Function Review Team
> formation. More details about the 2 issues are in the attached documents.
>
> looking forward to hear from you if there is any issue with the proposed
> options. In particular, those who were involved in the IANA Stewardship
> transition CWG may give some insights here.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Drazek, Keith via council*
> Date: mar. 8 janv. 2019 à 08:15
> Subject: [council] FW: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
> To:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Please see the attached request from ICANN for community input on two
> membership appointment issues currently facing the IANA Naming Functions
> Review Team – one related to a geographical diversity requirement, and the
> other a ccTLD-facing representation concern. Both issues are in play due to
> the new ICANN bylaws language and requirements related to the IFRT, so
> please review and advise if your SGs and Cs have views on a reasonable path
> forward.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Trang Nguyen
> *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 11:55 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues
>
>
>
> Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee,
>
>
>
> Please see attached letter regarding two issues with the IANA Naming
> Function Review Team that we are requesting your organization help address.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Trang Nguyen
>
> Vice President, GDD Strategic Programs
>
> ICANN
>
>
>
>
>
> <ccNSO_IFRT letter to appointing orgs[1].pdf><IFR Issues Resolution
> Request.pdf>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190111/8883a99b/attachment.htm>