[IOT] possible compromise idea on timing "repose" issue

McAuley, David dmcauley at verisign.com
Fri Jun 9 20:36:11 UTC 2017


Dear members of the IRP IOT,



The fourth item on our agenda for Monday's call (19:00 UTC) is the timing issue - this has been a difficult issue for us and Malcolm has very capably been leading it.



In my participant role, I am going to suggest a compromise position (not one that I have mentioned before). It seems there are reasonable views on both sides of the issue and I offer this as a compromise that may be a reasonable way forward.



So far we are in general agreement, I believe, on the time requirement for filing an IRP claim: within 120 days of the harm to a claimant or 120 days from the time the claimant should reasonably have been aware of such harm, whichever period is later.



But we have grappled more with whether an overall "repose" period should apply.



My compromise suggestion is to choose a time-limitation period of repose analogous to a time limitation for claims of breach of fiduciary duty. A quick Wikipedia search led me to conclude that in California that would likely be four years.



So for overall repose, what about a cap of four years from date of ICANN action. Breach of fiduciary duty is not too far removed from the idea of breach of articles or bylaws.



David



David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170609/ba16dfc6/attachment.html>


More information about the IOT mailing list