[IOT] IOT - Transition proposal for repose issue

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Thu Jun 7 14:32:29 UTC 2018

On 07/06/2018 02:33, Samantha Eisner wrote:
> 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.

What does this mean?

Does this mean that people who were refused filing when the "interim
rules" were in place would have 120 days from when the final rules come in?

            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

More information about the IOT mailing list