Hello
We can work on an NCSG public comment too, on this shared doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TMI2n_EgBDVTSUZm2Xwl7SSHWks9Hz076NQG
fsXxqso/edit?usp=sharing
I am sorry at the moment there is nothing in the google doc yet and I do
not have the time to work on it. It can be based on Milton's blog post. and
Members can add to it, We can then submit to NCSG PC. I encourage one of
the NCSG PC members to become a penholder and draft something. Then ask the
members to comment and add to it and resolve issues and submit to NCSG PC
for approval. I think deadline is 28th Jan.
Best
Farzaneh
Farzaneh
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Thanks, these comments are very helpful.
>
> But make sure that you submit them to ICANN as a formal public comment at
> this address:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> your comments will not be taken into account by the implementation team
> unless they are submitted to the public comment forum
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *gangadhar
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:38 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] My views on the supplementary rules for the
> Independent Review Process
>
>
>
> I submit my views as under:
>
>
>
> 1.The process of challenging a policy should not be hit by time-bar. If it
> is very strongly felt that a fixed time limit is necessary, a period of
> minimum 5 years should be allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.The Independent Review Process IRP has to protect not just the
> contracted parties [ mostly commercial] but also Registrants so that the
> scope of legislation is expanded in the interest of non-commercial users
> and ICANN at large.
>
>
>
> 3. 'Policies' should be brought within the ambit in addition to
> 'implementaitons' which will give a chance to Registrants of 'being heard'
> and upholds principles of natural justice.
>
>
>
> 4. A minimum of 90 days should be given to Registrants to file an IRP
> Challenge to the Policy.
>
>
>
> yours sincerely
>
>
>
> Gangadhar Panday
>
> President, Babul Films Society NGO Nonoprofit
>
> www.babul.ngo - Videos and ICT for Eco-awareness
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 7:42 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
>
>
> Thanks very much for this blog post. In our rush to meet deadlines I'm not
> sure we thought through clearly enough some of the specifics of our
> accountability mechanisms. We've changed the nature of the IRP from being
> an arbitration device to being a quasi-constututional court. Yet in areas
> like statutes of limitations we've kept rules more applicable to commercial
> arbitration proceedings than to the new broadened remit of the IRP.
>
>
>
> An extraordinarily well done and important blog post. Public comments are
> due on 25 January for the IRP Supplemental Procedures report. Hopefully we
> can get multiple comments submitted by NCSG members.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Monday, January 9, 2017 8:48 PM
> *To*: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc*: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject*: [NCUC-DISCUSS] My views on the supplementary rules for the
> Independent Review Process
>
>
>
> This blog post takes a seemingly legalistic and obscure set of rules and
> shows how it is very important for the ICANN accountability reforms. My
> comments are intended to help NCSG develop public comments on the IRP
> rules, hope people can follow up. We still have time to fix the problem if
> we act. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/07/putting-your-
> rights-on-the-clock-the-irp-supplementary-rules/ Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet
> Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/
> _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> [log in to unmask] http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
|
