[IOT] IOT - Transition proposal for repose issue

[Samantha Eisner]

Dear IOT,


Following up from our call last week on the interplay between the proposed Interim Supplementary Procedures and the Final set as it relates to the issue of repose, David McAuley asked me to provide a written note to the list.


David raised the question that (1) assuming the outcomes of the public comment on repose support a final set with no repose period (or a period longer than 12 months); and (2) assuming that the Interim procedures have a 12 month repose period (based on the prior proposals and principles guiding the development of the Interim set), what would happen to people who might have been able to file an IRP while the Interim set was in place, but for the 1 year repose period?


I replied that ICANN could commit that based on those assumptions, a person who had their 120-day period run during the time the Interim rules were in force, but were not able to file because the action that they allege caused the harm was more than 12 months prior, that we could build in a transitional clause into the final set that would give a limited period of time for those claimants to bring an IRP when the final set goes into force.  This would require demonstration of when the 120 day period started and stopped as well as requiring them to reach the same standard for demonstrating the reasonableness of when they should have known of the act/material that will be included in the final rule.

?

We think that will address concerns of how the Interim Rules might prejudice filers.


Please let us know if you have any questions.


Sam


____

Samantha Eisner

Deputy General Counsel, ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90094

USA

Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20180607/94203b4c/attachment.html>