Hi Avri,

Thanks for the kind words.

Strangely, for ICANN, the revised process is pretty straightforward.

On or before July 17th we need to send an e-mail to the nice folks at ICANN at [log in to unmask] and include therein:

1. the fact we are invoking the CEP,

2. identification of the Board action involved,

3. identification of the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation we allege that have been violated,

4. giving ICANN a single point of contact to communicate with on the matter.

Things then move rapidly. Within three days of the receipt of our e-mail ICANN will appoint a single contact person from amongst it's ever growing cadre of executives to deal with the matter. Two days after that there will be a telephone call to discuss the matter and, if needed, a face to face meeting will occur about a week later.


And is someone  ready to lead us along this path?
(you, as our resident expert on ICANN mission impossible?)


We have a number of highly qualified people that I'm sure can lead us forward, most notably Robin, whose resolute leadership has brought us to this point. This issue is very important to me, as to many of us, so whatever help I can provide on the matter I'm more than happy to do.

 It may be mission impossible, but I don't believe it is a lost cause, and I think the difference between those two perspectives is why we need to fight on.

Ed  



On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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.
>
>