[IOT] IOT - Material on timing issue

[Flip Petillion]

Dear all, 
I am in the same position.
Apologies. I will join as quickly as possible.
Best,
Flip

 
 
Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law
+32484652653
www.petillion.law
 
 <https://www.petillion.law/>
 
  Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats
 

On 21/09/2020, 23:28, "IOT on behalf of Becky Burr" <iot-bounces at icann.org on behalf of BBurr at hwglaw.com> wrote:

    Apologies to all, I will miss at least the first 30 minutes of tomorrow's call but will join as quickly as possible.


    J. Beckwith Burr

    HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP

    1919 M Street NW/8th Floor

    Washington DC 20036

    202.730.1316 (P) 202.352.6367 (M)


    ________________________________
    From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
    Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 5:08:16 PM
    To: iot at icann.org
    Subject: [IOT] IOT - Material on timing issue



    All,

    Please find attached 3 documents which summarize the situation on the Time To File issue up to and including the results of the public consultation on this specific topic.

    The first document is the announcement for the public consultation on the Time To File issue (the second IOT public consultation) and lays out the changes that were proposed following the initial consultation on the revised rules (held in late 2016). This summarizes the situation which led to the proposed changes as well as those proposed changes.

    The second and third documents are spreadsheets that present the comments made on timing issues in the first and second public consultations.

    The Announcement summarizes the results of the first public consultation.

    The summary of the second public consultation is as follows:

      *   100% in favour of changing 45 to 120 days (but with many saying that it should be more than 120 days).
      *   Majority in favour of removing the 1-year repose. (6 in favour, 2 against)
      *   Many noted that the time from when the 120 days starts needs to be clarified vs other applicable mechanisms to a dispute (such Reconsideration etc )
      *   Several noted that the definition of “ought reasonably to have been aware,” was too vague (NTIA comment).

    Following the second public consultation, the IOT did not return to this issue as it was focusing on producing the Interim Rules which were accepted by the ICANN Board but these did not include the proposed changes to the Time to File issue which was the core of the second public consultation.

    Bernard Turcotte
    ICANN Support to the IOT

    For

    Susan Payne
    Chair IOT

    _______________________________________________
    IOT mailing list
    IOT at icann.org
    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot

    _______________________________________________
    By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.