Yeah, I thought we HAD already requested a CEP!?!?


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN Board dismisses NCSG reconsideration request on ICANN violating process by adopting TM+50 policy

Hi,
Hi,

Thanks for the explanation.

What actions are required to do this?  
Is it just a letter invoking the correct formula?
If so, what are the magic words?

Or is there some more Byzantine path we need to follow.
And is someone  ready to lead us along this path?
(you, as our resident expert on ICANN mission impossible?)

avri

On 4 Jul 2013, at 14:01, Edward Morris wrote:

> Reasonable yes, possible no. Pesky little thing called the ICANN Bylaws. The decision to go forward with an IRP will have to be made prior to the resolution of any sort of PDP process. That said, we're not even at the point yet where a decision about an IRP needs to be made.
> 
> The next step towards an IRP is asking for a CEP to be started. The Cooperative Engagement Process, per article IV, section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws, attempts to solve the issue at contention through a process of formal negotiation prior to the commencement of an IRP action. It is valuable in it's own right, as well as being necessary to limit our financial liability vis a vis the Board should we proceed with an IRP. 
> 
> Of course, it is more than reasonable to separately also commence a PDP on the matter. However, let's not mistake this for being a political issue. It's nice to have friends, it's nicer to be right. The IRP is a legal process, not a political process. The determination as to whether to ho forward with an IRP should not be made with reference to how popular our effort is with fellow members of the Community, but rather needs to be a cold hearted decision about our chances of actually winning the action. Until the CEP is concluded we can not, nor should we, make such a calculation.
> 
> We need to send notification of our intent to proceed with the CEP no later than July 17th. We should do so. The CEP, not a PDF, is the antecedent needed prior to the IRP. A PDF would also be welcome on a separate, dual track approach to knocking back this horrible, both in terms of policy and of procedure, decision.
> 
>