[IOT] Interim Supplementary Rules of Procedure

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 31/05/2018 20:11, Elizabeth Le wrote:
> Dear Members of the IOT,
> 
>  
> 
> During the last IRP call, there were questions about what should be
> included in the Interim Supplementary Procedures, particularly around
> areas where the IRP IOT has not come to agreement, namely Rule 4.  As
> noted on the call and as annotated in the draft Interim Supplementary
> Rules, the Interim Supplementary Rules is intended to include the
> language that the group has agreed upon.  As the group has agreed upon
> on 120 days, we recommend that be included that in the Interim
> Supplementary Rules.  Further, as annotated in the draft Interim
> Supplementary Rules, with respect to the statute of repose issue, as
> this will go out for public comment due to the newly proposed material
> change by some members of the IRP IOT, it makes sense to include in the
> Interim Supplementary Rules what was previously agree to in the version
> that was originally put out for public comment, which is 12 months, and
> if there is a change to the statute of repose as a result of the public
> comment period, then the final rules can be change as appropriate. 
> 


Dear Liz,

I'm getting really frustrated by your team's relentless opposition to
and continual misrepresentation of what this group has decided.

* We agreed on 120 days, over a year ago now
* We agreed to remove the concept of repose, at the same time
* You have since argued to re-insert repose, but there is not even
majority support for this, much less a consensus

This is all extremely well documented, and David has repeatedly
re-confirmed that this is an accurate statement of the decisions made at
the time, despite his personal sympathy for the substance of what you want.

Your departments' ongoing interventions demanding that we go back to the
repose and refusal to accept that we have agreed not to have repose no
longer constitutes reasoned discussion, but has taken on the character
of an attempt to grind down the volunteer community, and frankly an abuse.

I would finally remind you that this entire exercise is part of a
community effort to ensure that ICANN is held properly to account, and
to deliver on the commitments made at transition. Utter intransigence is
defence of a rule that would immunise ICANN from challenge in the most
serious cases shows a lack of good faith.

It's time for this to stop. We need to get this report out to the
community, and then delivered to the Board. As ICANN's Legal Department,
you will then have a further privileged opportunity to brief the Board
as to why you think they should ignore the plain intent of the Bylaws.
But we need to discharge our responsibilities, so please stop trying to
stymie that.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Hutty.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA