[IOT] Discussion thread #1

[avri doria]

Hi,

I understand the risk, that is why the wording I offered was  so
constrained.  But if it comes to matter of justice under rights under
the new Articles and bylaws, it seems wrong not to allow these
complainants to argue the relevance of the update Articles and ByLaws.

This wording seems less constraining than the wording I offered since I
was trying to argue that it had to rest on the "the case as presented". 
This seems to leave open the chance of submitting new elements.

thanks

avri


On 22-Aug-16 16:37, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
>
> The current draft states:
>
>     IRPs commenced prior to the adoption of these Updated
>     Supplementary Procedures shall be governed by the Supplementary
>     Procedures in effect at the time such IRPs were commenced. 
>
> In other words, if you filed an IRP before these new rules get adopted
> on October 1, you continue to operate under the existing supplementary
> rules and note the updated supplementary rules.  Several people have
> expressed disagreement with that principle, and Avri has suggested
> adding language along the lines below (I have tweaked it slightly):
>
>     [unless the IRP Panel determines that the party requesting
>     application of the Updated Supplementary has demonstrated that
>     application of the former Supplementary Procedures would be unjust
>     and impracticable to the requesting party and application of the
>     Updated Supplementary Rules would not materially disadvantage any
>     other party’s substantive rights.  Any party to a then-pending IRP
>     may oppose the request for application of the Updated
>     Supplementary Procedures.  Requests to apply the Updated
>     Supplementary Procedures will be resolved by the IRP PANEL in its
>     discretion]
>
> This is a difficult and important issue.  Most importantly, we need to
> understand and address the impact that this change would have on IRPs
> that are ongoing as of October 1 2016.  Would a claimant be entitled
> to essentially re-start the process to take advantage of a changed
> page limitation or the updated standard of review, even if a hearing
> has taken place and the only remaining step is for the Panel to issue
> a declaration?  What about those who are close to the end of the
> process and want to go back and move to have an in person hearing?
>  Could this be limited in some way? ICANN thinks that needs to be a
> bright line between IRPs filed under the old Bylaws/old procedures,
> and the IRPs filed under the new Bylaws/new procedures. 
>
> Also, since this is retroactive and would impact IRPs filed under the
> old rules, query whether this is within the scope of our remit.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> *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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus