[IOT] Imminently affect (Was Re: Fwd: segmenting certain IRP comments)
Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Apr 28 14:04:12 UTC 2017
I would have thought that the provision of injunctive relief addresses
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367
Follow Neustar: LinkedIn / Twitter
Reduce your environmental footprint. Print
only if necessary.
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the
On 4/27/17, 6:13 PM, "iot-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty"
<iot-bounces at icann.org on behalf of malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>On tonight's call I promised to recapitulate and amplify my comments on
>INTA's public comment.
>INTA proposed, to paraphrase, that the qualifying standard "materially
>affected" should be extended to include those that would imminently be
>affected, not only those who had already been affected.
>Firstly, I would like to say that I agree with David's assessment that
>the standard "materially affected" is set out in the Bylaws, and also
>that to exceed the Bylaws is beyond our authority, and to propose
>changes to the Bylaws is beyond our scope. Moreover, I think we should
>be strict with ourselves and not appear to trespass on an extension of
>the Bylaws, lest our output be deemed inconsistent and therefore invalid.
>That said, as a matter of policy, I am sympathetic to INTA's concern. It
>is in nobody's interest to prevent an IRP case being brought over the
>mere technicality that something that is certain and imminent has not
>yet occurred, but becomes irreversible and so moot the instant it does
>Indeed, I believe the IRP has itself already said as much, in a previous
>I would therefore like to ask our group to explore whether there is
>anything that might be done within the existing bylaws that might go at
>least some way towards addressing INTA's underlying concern, even if not
>in quite the manner they proposed.
>Would it be possible, for example, to write a rule that said that when
>considering whether a party was "materially affected", the panel must
>take into account how that party is affected by actions ICANN has said
>that it intends to take?
>I offer this only as one example - maybe it doesn't work, and maybe it
>doesn't go far enough, but it illustrates the area I think we could
>I don't want to put too much burden on our independent counsel, but
>since this is a technical area I also wonder whether we might ask Sidley
>for ideas as to how far we might go, consistent with the existing
>bylaws, to avoid the creating "tipping point" where a case passes from
>"premature" to "moot" without ever passing through "timely".
>I don't really have a solution here, but of all the public comment
>proposals that suggested approaches apparently inconsistent with the
>bylaws, this is the one that I think deserves a more generous hearing.
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange |
> 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
More information about the IOT