I support signing.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:39 AM Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I also support signing.
>
>
> Best,
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:57 PM Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I caught a couple of typos, but it seems like a good idea.  Redlined version attached.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2018-10-22 20:46, farzaneh badii 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