[IOT] IRP IoT message post-ICANN57

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Nov 21 19:02:50 UTC 2016


Malcolm - I seem to have missed the written contributions following our
plenary calls in September and October.  Can you point me in the right
direction please?


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>




On 11/21/16, 6:07 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>On 18/11/2016 18:35, McAuley, David wrote:
>
>> *Further clarification or supplemental rules work?*
>>
>> 2.       A related issue deals with considering/addressing the footnotes
>> in the new supplemental rules.
>
>I would like to put down a marker for drawing attention to footnote 14,
>which simply notes that the draft text on "Time for filing" is still
>under discussion and has not yet been agreed.
>
>The last discussion on-list was prompted by Becky, who consulted the
>CCWG in plenary on this issue. On the call, we only had one comment from
>a CCWG member who is not part of this group, Kavouss Aresteh, who was
>content with the text as proposed; David, Greg and myself, as members of
>this group, spoke to our own positions too.
>
>Following the call we had written contributions from
>
>Mike Rodenbaugh
>Milton Mueller
>Paul Rosenzweig
>Bradley Silver
>Farzaneh Badii
>Phil Corwin
>
>all of whom disagreed with the proposed text and wanted a longer period
>and/or a moving starting point (i.e. disagreeing with the subclause
>that says "provided, however, that a statement of a DISPUTE may not be
>filed more than twelve (12) months from the date of such action or
>inaction").
>
>I would therefore suggest that the preponderant view is that the current
>text needs changing. Especially, we need to remove ICANN's ability to
>stand in repose in the face of clear and ongoing facial violations of
>its Mission limitation. If we introduce a timebar that permits such
>ongoing violation to continue without possibility of challenge, I think
>the rules of procedure themselves would be in violation of the bylaws.
>
>I am afraid I was not able to be in Hyderabad. Was there further
>discussion of this point in plenary? Did the above mentioned people
>withdraw their objections?
>
>
>> I believe the footnotes are carry-overs
>> from the original drafting work done by Sidley-Adler. For example,
>> footnote 43 involves the timing of IRP panel decisions
>
>Footnote 43 is about cost-shifting. Did you mean a different footnote?
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Malcolm.
>-- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange |
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net
>_&d=DgICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
>DDkMr4k&m=lYIAKlb5QTBkrFrEHyIZxUZMlAAxZYNFPZahUTz8T84&s=JEOJtBG2-PKdroMNwd
>qDytmabAuMR3oqjR2oLpXYyhE&e=
>
>                 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
>_______________________________________________
>IOT mailing list
>IOT at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_iot&d=DgICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjD
>mrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYIAKlb5QTBkrFrEHyIZxUZMlAAxZYNFPZahUTz8T84&s=qiIwgjC
>eql-kl2GrbGpptgPGIl6HKasvy3BfoiAU1Bc&e= 



More information about the IOT mailing list