[IOT] Discussion thread #2

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

This makes sense to me, and I would suggest 24 months.

Best,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

>
> The draft Updated Supplementary Rules just circulated contains the
> following:
>
> A CLAIMANT shall file a written statement of a DISPUTE with the ICDR no
> more than 45 days after a CLAIMANT becomes aware or reasonably should
> have been aware of the action or inaction giving rise to the DISPUTE or,
> where a CLAIMANT demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Panel that it was
> not aware of the action or inaction prior to the end of that 45 day period,
> no more than [X] months from the date of such action or inaction.
>
>
>
>  The CCWG’s Final Report does not contemplate a “constructive knowledge”
> standard, so it has been removed.  We should be concerned, however, that an
> “actual knowledge” standard could result in challenges coming long after a
> decision has been taken, and ICANN and third parties have acted in reliance
> on the finality of that action.  We should not encourage people to sit on
> their claims to the detriment of ICANN and/or other interested and affected
> parties. Does this standard strike the right balance?  Have we provided the
> right incentives?
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20160822/28cf7a04/attachment-0001.html>