agree I think there is sufficient mass to support an SG signature and let’s ask if they want broader support
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 Oct 2018, at 16:18, Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We should maybe ask Malcolm if they want individual signatories before
> we start slotting them in, or if they only want to keep it to ICANN
> institutional signatories.
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:09 PM Paul Rosenzweig
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Like everyone else, I think we should sign as an institution and also am happy to sign individually. This is one of the most important “silent” legal issues in the entire IRP process. It makes it possible for some actions that have only long-term effects to be immune from review … and that is simply wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> 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 <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Buddha Halder
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 6:48 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: URGENT CO-SIGN request: Joint letter to Board on IRP Rules of Procedure
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I also support signing
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 22:01, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I support us signing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 20:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
