[IOT] IOT Timing-Repose Issue

McAuley, David dmcauley at verisign.com
Wed May 17 18:09:36 UTC 2017


Thanks Greg.



I think we have had good discussion. My suggestion for tomorrow would be to invite Malcolm (as issue lead) and Liz or Sam to wind up their positions in brief rather than in depth and then, unless someone has something new and material to add, to ask Malcolm as lead to prepare a statement for list as to winding up the matter for first reading.



david



David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154



From: iot-bounces at icann.org [mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Cc: iot at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] IOT Timing-Repose Issue



I largely agree with Malcolm on this point, and if we want to explore it in more depth, I'm happy to do so.



Greg




Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>



On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:

   On 2017-05-11 07:55, Elizabeth Le wrote:
   > Here are some thoughts from ICANN regarding the statute of repose
   > issue and, in particular, how the lack of a time limit could impact
   > ICANN and the broader ICANN community:
   >
   > The IRP IOT is discussing the issue of “repose,” which is has two
   > components:
   >
   >       * How long after a person is aware (or reasonably should have been
   > aware) of a harm caused by an act of ICANN that was taken in
   > contradiction to the Bylaws or Articles; and
   >       * How long of a period of time, in total, should pass before it is no
   > longer reasonable for a person to claim they became aware of an action
   > of ICANN that they alleged caused them harm?


   I could provide a point-by-point rebuttal, and if Liz and Sam would
   appreciate the courtesy I would be happy to do so (not least because I
   have already written it) but I fear others on this list would find it
   tiresome.

   So for now I will simply say that I disagree with much of what Liz has
   set out in her lengthy e-mail, and that I note that it does not actually
   disclose any actual, identifiable problems that would result from the
   120 day rule, only a difference of preference on approach.

   I think it is vitally important that no claim should be struck out by
   reason of being too late before it was even possible to file it. A
   person has to be "materially affected" to file a claim: they cannot be
   too late before they have been materially affected.

   Any rule that would have the effect of striking out the claim before it
   was possible to bring it is not in truth a deadline for filing, it is a
   covert attempt to rewrite (and narrow) the rules on standing set out in
   the bylaws.

   That cannot be right, nor is it within our power. We must act
   consistently with the bylaws.

   In a desperate attempt to draw a line under this, I would like to make a
   last attempt at a compromise, based on Liz's opening statement above:

   * add a presumption that it is not reasonable for a person to claim that
   they only became aware of the harm more than a year after the date they
   suffered it, and so became eligible to file the claim.

   I hope this is acceptable to ICANN Legal.

   If, on the other hand, ICANN Legal cannot be satisfied unless some
   classes of claim are immunised from ever being heard, irrespective of
   how promptly the claimant reacts to the harm they have suffered, then I
   think we must respectfully reject their position. To do otherwise would
   fundamentally dishonour both the bylaws and the transition settlement.

   Malcolm.

   --
               Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
      Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
    London Internet Exchange | http://www.linx.net/publicaffairs

                    London Internet Exchange Ltd
                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<mailto:IOT at icann.org>
   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170517/bc15c315/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the IOT mailing list