[IOT] Discussion thread #1

[avri doria]

Hi,

thanks for the added words.

Re:

> 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?

The point, as with the clause for post transition appeals (I thought)
was not application of the procedural rules but access to any rights or
scope that may may have changed based on Article and ByLaw chnges.

The big issue for current appeals is that they are not discussed in
respect to mission &c.  Post October 1, appeals will be able to have
judgement taken not only concerning malice, mistruth or oversight but in
regard to the substance.  If their appeal, as originally submitted,
included discussions of substance that were declared out of scope
because of today's narrow scope, the appellant should be able to ask the
panel to take those into consideration.  And while it may become a moot
point, they should also have recourse to the courts under the same
conditions as appellants post transition.


avri



On 29-Aug-16 11:07, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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