[IOT] Notes on next meeting and repose and more

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 30/04/2018 17:09, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
> (With respect to timing of
> filing, and apart from the repose issue, I believe we have agreed that
> the time within which a claimant must bring the action is 120 days from
> when claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the action or
> inaction giving rise to the Dispute.)
> 

David,

In the above you have made what I believe is an accidental misstatement.
I will therefore reply to the rest of your e-mail separately.

The above quoted line would implement the doctrine of repose.

What I believe you meant to say we

"I believe we have agreed that the time wihtin which a claimant must
bring the action is 120 days from when the claimant knew or ought to
have known *that they had suffered the harm* giving rise to the Dispute".

I believe that we all agree that that should be a cut-off.

There is then the separate question of whether 120 days after ICANN's
action should be an alternative cut-off, if that should come earlier.
That alternative cut-off has been named as "repose", as it would deny
potential complainants access to the IRP if ICANN or Registries took
longer than 120 days to implement ICANN's decision.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 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