[IOT] [Ext] Re: IOT - Transition proposal for repose issue

[Samantha Eisner]

Hi Malcolm - 

To your question, I think that the IOT could consider how long that period should be after the final procedures are in force that someone can file their IRP if they are impacted by this repose issue.  I don't presume to dictate what that time is, but I don't think it would make sense for it to be any longer than 120 days.

To bring this into an example:

Assume the interim procedures go into force on 1 July 2018 and the final procedures go into force on 1 January 2019 with no repose timeframe.

During that 1 July 2018 - 31 Dec 2018 timeframe, a potential claimant has their 120 day time frame expire from when they learn of harm caused by an act of ICANN from an act two years ago.  As of 1 January 2019, they will have [120? fewer?] days within which to bring their IRP based on the harm caused by that act. They will still have to demonstrate all the other required elements of why their claim is timely in order to maintain their claim (such as documentation of when the 120 days started, the reasonableness of why they learned of harm at that time, whatever else winds up in the final rule).

Hope this helps.

Sam

____
Samantha Eisner
Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90094
USA
Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631

________________________________________
From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 7:32 AM
To: Samantha Eisner; iot at icann.org
Subject: [Ext] Re: [IOT] IOT - Transition proposal for repose issue

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.

OK.

>  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 | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&d=DwIF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=B-s_Z4jfXaKMkuiNguWKGDzOuas8TiFWdbC78Q8S5Hc&s=n73RYCcOiBBkfNq_1nSsDdl9z8PZzZkFb2LfRB8ZrSA&e=

                 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