[IOT] IOT - Material on timing issue

[Malcolm Hutty]

Dear all,

As requested on the call just concluded, I am forwarding to the link to the letter to the board signed by the constituent bodies of the Non-contracted Parties House of the gNSO on the subject of the time for filing, dated 23rd October 2018.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/badiei-et-al-to-chalaby-23oct18-en.pdf

You may find it a useful addition to the submissions in the two formal Public comment rounds, to help you assess the views within the community, if for no other reason than that it was signed on behalf of such a large bloc.

It goes without saying that ICANN's legal department disagrees with a lot of the substance of the points raised in this letter.

Just as with Public comment submissions, you can decide for yourself whether you agree with such input, but I think it is worth knowing that the Board received this input.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

________________________________________
From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
Sent: 21 September 2020 22:08
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