[IOT] Discussion thread #1

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Aug 29 15:07:14 UTC 2016


Please see the language in bold/blue below.  I believe this captures the limitation that Avri offered.
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>

From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM
To: "iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>" <iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>>
Subject: Discussion thread #1



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 materially and unjustly affect judgment on the case as presented by 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20160829/3832966c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the IOT mailing list