<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
p.9e7b50e6-8ae3-4c49-a6d0-8087ee035f4a, li.9e7b50e6-8ae3-4c49-a6d0-8087ee035f4a, div.9e7b50e6-8ae3-4c49-a6d0-8087ee035f4a
{mso-style-name:9e7b50e6-8ae3-4c49-a6d0-8087ee035f4a;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Hi Liz,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thank you for forwarding the comments by Jones Day, these are helpful in considering this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I am under the impression that ICANN would also be making a specific proposal for consideration in the timing issue. Is that correct?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">In order to address the finalization of the timing issue, I ask IOT members to look at the recent email strings on the topic and recall the conversations on recent calls.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">We have a call coming up Wednesday the 19<sup>th</sup> – the timing issue will NOT be on the agenda then. Rather, I invite all IOT members to contribute thoughts on list over the coming week, including a proposal
from ICANN if that is their plan, so that we can address and hopefully conclude the timing issue on our call on the 27<sup>th</sup> of April.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">David<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">International Policy Manager<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Verisign Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">703-948-4154<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> Elizabeth Le [mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; iot@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] FW: Preparation for tonight's call on timing issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Thanks David.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">ICANN has asked Jones Day for some assistance in evaluating the inputs received by Sidley on 6 April. Below is Jones Day’s response to Sidley’s input.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">As Sidley notes, the Bylaws (Section 4.3(n)(iv)(A)) provide that time limits on seeking IRP redress will run from when a claimant "becomes aware or reasonably
should have become aware of the action or inaction giving rise to the Dispute":
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">“The Rules of Procedure are intended to ensure fundamental fairness and due process and shall at a minimum address the following elements:
<i>The time within which a Claim must be filed after a Claimant becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action or inaction giving rise to the Dispute</i>.” (Emphasis supplied.)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">The Bylaws further provide that the determination concerning the appropriate number of days a claimant has to file an IRP was a decision left to the IRP
IOT. <i>See</i> Section 4.3(n)(iv);<i> see also </i>Annex 7 of the CCWG report, paras. 18-19.<i> </i>It is thus entirely consistent with the Bylaws and within the IRP IOT's discretion to propose a rule that limits the total number of days a claimant may
have to file an IRP. Sidley emphasizes that that decision must be tethered in some fashion to the time a claimant knew or should have known of the action giving rise to the dispute; the current draft rule (as posted for comment) meets that standard. The
IRP IOT also is empowered under the Bylaws and the CCWG Proposal to recommend that, to further the purposes of the IRP, a claimant reasonably "should have known" or "should have become aware" of the challenged action within 12 months of the time the offending
conduct occurred. Nothing in the Bylaws or the CCWG Report suggests that the IRP IOT can't recommend a rule to that effect.
<br>
<br>
In fact, Sidley appears to concede as much in its 4 January 2017 memo (at p. 4): <b><i>"It may be that the IRP Subgroup has determined that 12 months is the period in which a claimant reasonably should have known of the action or inaction giving rise to the
Dispute in all circumstances."</i></b> While Sidley goes on to express its view that such a determination could be subject to criticism because "it could result in claims being foreclosed before an injury, and hence knowledge of an injury, had ever arisen,"
it appears that Sidley previously agreed that such a determination was feasible under the Bylaws. <br>
<br>
Further, a 12-month (or other outside limit of repose) only runs from an individual action or inaction causing the harm, not from only the first time an action or inaction occurred on a particular issue. As stated in the IRP IOT Report:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">“[A]ctions or inactions giving rise to an IRP claim
<b><i>can occur more than twelve months following the adoption of a particular rule</i></b>. For example, were ICANN to interpret a policy in a manner that violated the Bylaws, the time period would run from the date on which the offending interpretation occurred,
not the date on which the policy was adopted.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">See
</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Draft IRP Updated Supplementary Procedures: Report of the IRP IOT, 31 Oct. 2016, at 3 (emphasis added). Accordingly, a claimant who believes that ICANN acted to apply
a rule/policy in a manner that violates the Bylaws/Articles and caused the claimant harm would, under a period of repose, bring that claim within 12 months of the action (and within a certain number of days, currently proposed within the IOT as 120, from the
time of becoming aware or when they should have become aware of the action). If there was an earlier action adopting the rule/policy, that separate and earlier action would have its own 12 month repose. <i>See id.
</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Furthermore, eliminating the statute of repose entirely is inconsistent with the CCWG's stated goal of enhancing ICANN's accountability.
As stated in Annex 7 of the CCWG Report: “The overall purpose of the Independent Review Process (IRP) is to ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its limited technical Mission and complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.” (CCWG Report
at ¶ 1). In particular, the CCWG proposal makes clear that the IRP “should … ensure that ICANN is accountable to the community and individuals/entities.” (<i>See also id</i>. ¶ 7.) Permitting IRPs challenging ICANN Board or Staff actions to be brought at
any time does not further this purpose; to ensure accountability, actions should be challenged in a timely manner.
<br>
<br>
Finally, Draft Rule 4 already constitutes a substantial expansion from the time limitations set forth in the previous iteration of ICANN’s Bylaws. Specifically, prior to the adoption of the 2016 ICANN Bylaws, “[a] request for independent review must [have
been] filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing Materials, if available) that the requesting party contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Article of Incorporation.” ICANN
Bylaws, Art. IV, § 3.3 (30 July 2014). In an effort to “[e]nsure that ICANN is accountable to the community and individuals/entities for actions or inaction outside its Mission or that otherwise violate its Articles of Incorporation of Bylaws” (CCWG Report
¶ 7), the IRP IOT sought “to balance the fact that individuals may not always become aware of ICANN actions when they occur with the need for certainty about the finality of ICANN actions.” (Report of the IRP IOT at 3, 31 October 2016.) <br>
<br>
As a result, the CCWG proposed (following much debate) that claimants be permitted 45 days after the claimant “becomes aware of the material [e]ffect of the action or inaction giving rise to the dispute,” with an absolute bar of 12 months from the date of the
action or inaction. <i>See</i> Draft Rule 4. Following the public comment period, the IRP IOT is contemplating extending the 45-day period to 120 days. The 120-day limit, combined with an outside statute of repose as included in the draft for public comment
remains in line with the Bylaws and the CCWG Proposal, while giving more time for IRP complainants to bring their claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Best regards,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Liz<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Elizabeth Le</span></b><b><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Senior Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a href="mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org"><span style="color:#0563C1">elizabeth.le@icann.org</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">310-578-8902 (direct)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">310-745-7767 (mobile)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">310-823-8649 (fax)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">elizabeth.le.ICANN (skype)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">ICANN</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">|
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
</span><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">|
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Los Angeles, CA 90094<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org">iot-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "McAuley, David via IOT" <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"McAuley, David" <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, April 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[IOT] FW: Preparation for tonight's call on timing issue</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Dear members of the IRP IOT,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">As you know, Sam Eisner, Malcolm Hutty and I are discussing possible ways to finalize the “repose” issue relating to the timing within which IRP claims must be filed. We are doing this with a view to coming
back to this group with a suggestion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I have asked the Sidley law firm for some assistance in our discussions and want to forward their reply (from Holly Gregory) to you FYI.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Best regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">David</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">David McAuley</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">International Policy Manager</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Verisign Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">703-948-4154</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext"> Gregory, Holly [<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com">mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 06, 2017 2:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> McAuley, David <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@Verisign.com">dmcauley@Verisign.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> McNicholas, Edward R. <<a href="mailto:emcnicholas@sidley.com">emcnicholas@sidley.com</a>>; Grapsas, Rebecca <<a href="mailto:rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com">rebecca.grapsas@sidley.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: [IOT] Preparation for tonight's call on timing issue</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear David,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As we noted in our January 4, 2017 memo (at page 3 of the attached), the Bylaws (Section 4.3(n)(iv)(A)) provide that time limits on seeking IRP redress will run from when a claimant “becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware
of the action or inaction giving rise to the Dispute”:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">“The Rules of Procedure are intended to ensure fundamental fairness and due process and shall at a minimum address the following elements:
<i>The time within which a Claim must be filed after a Claimant becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action or inaction giving rise to the Dispute</i>.” (Emphasis supplied.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This provision of the Bylaws is better understood in the context of Annex 7 of the CCWG report (attached) which makes clear that the time for the filing of a claim must relate to when the impact of the action or inaction could be felt
by the claimant. It provides that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">“Any person, group or entity “materially affected” by an ICANN action or inaction in violation of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and/or Bylaws shall have the right to file a complaint under the IRP and seek redress.
<i>They must do so within a certain number of days (to be determined by the IRP Subgroup)
<u>after becoming aware of the alleged violation and how it allegedly affects them.</u></i>.” (paragraphs 18-19, emphasis supplied)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The specification in the Bylaws and Annex 7 that the time for bringing a claim runs from the time the claimant became aware of the action or inaction in relation to its impact on the claimant is at odds with the concept of a purely time-based
statute of repose that runs from the action or inaction without regard to when the action or inaction was or reasonably should have been discovered. Since a statute of repose would be inconsistent with a time limit based on awareness/reasonable awareness
of the action/inaction (for example, where such awareness occurred after the expiration of the statute of repose), it would be inconsistent with the plain language of the Bylaws, as well as Annex 7 of the CCWG report (see attached at paragraphs 18-19 and the
January 2017 memo at page 4).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Holly<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">HOLLY J. GREGORY</span></b><br>
Partner and Co-Chair, Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice<br>
<br>
<b>SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
</b>+1 212 839 5853<br>
<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" title="Click to send email to Gregory, Holly"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">holly.gregory@sidley.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bernard Turcotte <<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com" target="_blank">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Holly,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still working on the other part.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the meantime David has asked me to seek your view on the following - there is an argument wrt repose between Sam Eisner (see her note below) and Malcolm Hutty regarding the interpretation of your advice (Malcolm believes your advice
to be that any repose would be against the Bylaws).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bernard Turcotte for David McAuley.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Samantha Eisner</b> <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" target="_blank">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:25 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [IOT] Preparation for tonight's call on timing issue<br>
To: Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>>, "<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org" target="_blank">iot@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org" target="_blank">iot@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks Malcolm -<br>
<br>
I wanted to follow up on one issue from your email, which I¹d raised<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>during the last IOT call. Specifically, I had requested inputs on where<br>
Sidley said that a limitation on repose was inappropriate. I note you<br>
include below the following argument:<br>
<br>
"Perhaps even more important, though, is the opinion of our independent<br>
legal Counsel, who says that the statute of repose is incompatible with<br>
the Bylaws that have just been adopted to ensure ICANN's accountability.<br>
<br>
"Sidley writes:<br>
'Applying a strict 12-month limit to any IRP claim that commences at the<br>
time of the ICANN action or inaction and without regard to when the<br>
invalidity and material impact became known to the claimant, is<br>
inconsistent with the Bylaws (and is inconsistent with the terms of<br>
Annex 7 of the CCWG Report)." (page 4, letter of January 4, 2017).¹²<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
<br>
</span>To be clear, this quote is taken out of context. Sidley was not<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>responding to a a question of whether it was inappropriate to have an<br>
outside time limit on when IRPs can be raised. Sidley was responding to a<br>
question of whether the rules [as posted for comment] were consistent with<br>
a suggestion raised in the IOT that ICANN actions that are ³facially<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>invalid² under the Bylaws should be subject to challenge at any time.<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>{notably, this ³facially invalid² issue is no longer being discussed).<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>Their answer (as well as ICANN¹s) was that the rules as written did not<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>support such a claim being brought at any time.<br>
<br>
HOWEVER, Sidley also noted that their proposed revisions that would allow<br>
for the ³facially invalid² claim ALSO INCLUDED language that would "leave<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>in place the<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>45-day/12-month limit for ³as applied² challenges." (I.e., ICANN acts that<br>
result in injury).<br>
<br>
While there may be other bases for the IOT seeking to not include an<br>
ultimate period of repose on IRP claims, I think that it is important to<br>
make sure it¹s not based on an assertion (taken out of context) that a<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>period of repose is against the Bylaws. ICANN is not of the opinion that<br>
the Bylaws would be violated if an outside repose period were instituted.<br>
<br>
From my perspective, there are many ways to address the outside time limit<br>
claims issue. The concept that it¹s against any sort of arbitral norms<br>
doesn¹t really make sense - there are statutes of limitations in many<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>areas, and access to arbitration doesn¹t overtake those statutes. There<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>also seem to be some concerns, for example, that decisions on acceptance<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>of policy recommendations set up the time limit on ICANN actions in<br>
implementing the policy - but those would be separate actions with their<br>
own separate deadlines. Indeed, any time that ICANN acts outside of the<br>
Bylaws is its own new starting point. Maybe there are ways that we can<br>
make that clearer, as part of this discussion?<br>
<br>
<br>
‹<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>Samantha Eisner<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>Deputy General Counsel, ICANN<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>Los Angeles, California 90094<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>USA<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>Direct Dial: <a href="tel:(310)%20578-8631" target="_blank">+1 310 578 8631</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/30/17, 8:47 AM, "<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">iot-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of Malcolm Hutty"<br>
<<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">iot-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Dear all,<br>
><br>
>On the IOT call tonight we will return again to the issue of the limit<br>
>of time for filing an IRP claim.<br>
><br>
>Last call we made significant progress on this issue. We agreed by<br>
>consensus to reject the proposal by the Business Constituency and by the<br>
>ISPCP to introduce a moratorium on introducing new timing rules, pending<br>
>significant study of the likely effect.<br>
><br>
>We also agreed, by consensus and compromise, to settle on a limit for<br>
>filing of 120 days after the claimant was aware of the harm that they<br>
>had suffered, or when the claimant ought reasonably to have been aware<br>
>of the harm, if that is sooner. We agreed to leave precise wording to<br>
>our independent counsel to implement this agreement in principle.<br>
><br>
>Both of the above are real progress.<br>
><br>
>I thought we came close to agreeing not to adopt a "statute of repose",<br>
>an outside date at which ICANN would be immune any possibility of<br>
>challenge. However Sam Eisner asked that we keep this issue open for<br>
>further discussion on tonight's call.<br>
><br>
>In preparation for that discussion, I have at the end of this e-mail<br>
>provided excerpts of the comments from those responding to the public<br>
>comment period on this issue.<br>
><br>
>As you can see from those extracts, they are both overwhelmingly opposed<br>
>to having a statute of repose in principle, and also give a high level<br>
>of importance to this issue. Opposition is also spread across a broad<br>
>range of respondents, commercial and non-commercial organisations,<br>
>intellectual property interests and network operators, individuals and<br>
>large entities.<br>
><br>
>Perhaps even more important, though, is the opinion of our independent<br>
>legal Counsel, who says that the statute of repose is incompatible with<br>
>the Bylaws that have just been adopted to ensure ICANN's accountability.<br>
><br>
>Sidley writes:<br>
>"Applying a strict 12-month limit to any IRP claim that commences at the<br>
>time of the ICANN action or inaction and without regard to when the<br>
>invalidity and material impact became known to the claimant, is<br>
>inconsistent with the Bylaws (and is inconsistent with the terms of<br>
>Annex 7 of the CCWG Report)." (page 4, letter of January 4, 2017).<br>
><br>
>Given the combination of overwhelming opposition from the public comment<br>
>to a statute of repose, and the professional opinion of our Counsel that<br>
>such a repose is inconsistent with by the Bylaws and the CCWG's Final<br>
>Report on WS1, I will this evening ask your support for dropping this<br>
>issue and proceeding on the basis of the timing rule as agreed at the<br>
>last meeting.<br>
><br>
>If we are able to agree the above, there are still five items still to<br>
>address. You can see these in my slides for the last meeting, but to<br>
>recap briefly:<br>
><br>
>- a proposal that we exclude days spent in mediation from the count of<br>
>days towards the deadline;<br>
><br>
>- a proposal that we are explicit that we mean calendar days;<br>
><br>
>- a proposal that we start the count of days from the date that<br>
>translated documents are available;<br>
><br>
>- a proposal that we grant the IRP Panel a discretionary power to hear<br>
>claims filed after the deadline in certain circumstances;<br>
><br>
>- a proposal that the effectiveness of the timing rule be reviewed after<br>
>a set period.<br>
><br>
>Personally, I do not see these as complicated issues, so I would like us<br>
>to be ambitious and seek to achieve consensus on them all this evening.<br>
><br>
>Kind Regards,<br>
><br>
>Malcolm.<br>
><br>
>EXCERPTS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED<br>
><br>
><br>
>Sullivan:<br>
>"Time limits for correcting an error in policy does not make sense.<br>
>There should be no time limit for correcting an error. So if any problem<br>
>arises in the future and time has elapsed then we all have to live with<br>
>the problem because you implemented a time limit."<br>
><br>
>Hill:<br>
>"And obviously people who are affected by a specific decision based on a<br>
>policy will be informed of the decision. So in that case the time bar<br>
>should start to run from the time of notification of the decision."<br>
><br>
>Rosenzweig and Schaeffer:<br>
>"We believe this proposal improperly limits the ability of claimants to<br>
>challenge alleged Board Bylaw violations and divests the internet<br>
>community of a valuable tool for restraining Board behavior. As a<br>
>result, we think the proposal should be modified to a pure discovery<br>
>rule by striking the last clause establishing an outside time limit of<br>
>12 months.<br>
>[...]<br>
>Indeed, this seemingly procedural provision may have critical practical<br>
>consequences. The IRP process in intended to be the principal means of<br>
>countering the potential for ICANN mission creep. And the constrained<br>
>mission is seen as the single most significant innovation of the<br>
>Accountability process. The ability of the IRP to act as a check on<br>
>mission creep is critically weakened by a time-constrained IRP because a<br>
>Board decision¹s impact on the mission may not be become evident until<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>after implementation and application in future circumstances."<br>
><br>
>CCG Delhi:<br>
>"However, barring all claims after one year of the action or inaction is<br>
>extremely problematic.<br>
>"It should also be noted that arbitral institutions do not usually<br>
>impose time limits on the submission of a claim. A survey of leading<br>
>arbitral institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce, the<br>
>London Court of International Arbitration and the Stockholm Chamber of<br>
>Commerce suggests that this is not a common practice."<br>
>[citations supplied]<br>
><br>
><br>
>NCSG:<br>
>"This is an extraordinary loophole"<br>
>"But the time limits make no sense at all when applied to disputes over<br>
>consensus policies that are alleged to transgress mission limitations.<br>
>The mission limitations are meant to protect fundamental individual<br>
>rights, and to permanently constrain ICANN¹s mission. They are not<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>matters of expediency and are not time-dependent. If a policy allows<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>ICANN to expand its mission beyond its intended remit, the actions it<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>takes under that policy should be subject to challenge at any time."<br>
><br>
>DotMusic:<br>
>"Furthermore, there should be no statue of repose. [...]<br>
>The imposition of a statute of repose encourages non-transparent<br>
>behavior. If ICANN can prevent Claimants from learning about its actions<br>
>or inactions for 12 months then Claimants cannot commence an IRP against<br>
>ICANN."<br>
><br>
>BC:<br>
>"It is imperative that ICANN recognize and act upon our strenuous<br>
>objection to the proposed statues of limitations in the Updated<br>
>Supplementary Procedures prior to their adoption. The proposed limits<br>
>are unfair, inconsistent with international arbitration norms, and may<br>
>create substantial concerns around the legitimacy of ICANN as a<br>
>standalone, multi-stakeholder model organization."<br>
><br>
>LINX:<br>
>"The 12 month fixed limit from the date of the action is not merely too<br>
>short, butmiscalculated. The timing rule should be based on the date of<br>
>knowledge of the harm that ICANN¹s action gave rise to, rather than<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>calculated from the date of the action itself. To do otherwise would<br>
>unjustly exclude important cases from being heard by the IRP.<br>
>[...]<br>
>Both these flaws are serious, but it is the latter that we consider<br>
>catastrophic. The effect of the latter will be to seriously undermine,<br>
>and in many cases utterly negate, the enforceability of the Mission<br>
>limitation that was a key commitment by ICANN in the 2016 transition.<br>
>The seriousness of this commitment is shown by statements in the bylaws<br>
>promising ICANN¹s accountability as enforced through an accessible,<span style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
</span>>transparent and just resolution of dispute by the Independent Review<br>
>Process."<br>
><br>
><br>
>--<br>
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:+44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank">
+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
> London Internet Exchange |<br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net</a><br>
>_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5d<br>
>edIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=OMG0XE3BygJScfkj-_CJXLEbA2_FGPa_QHLR5i1Cy5I<br>
>&s=Y5xVLRzTdmOzq69CkKt5OSet0-bSYElCPLPKvk9KROY&e=<br>
><br>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ<br>
><br>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>IOT mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org" target="_blank">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iot&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=macNZGI3hDZgmbUzpDl3A5Xe_YlwcmGTLqiIK9-ioyo&s=ok-yYT3WuLKQMEcKRejHtC4Tq-9OWwY-owk41bbW02U&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
IOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org" target="_blank">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_iot&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=macNZGI3hDZgmbUzpDl3A5Xe_YlwcmGTLqiIK9-ioyo&s=ok-yYT3WuLKQMEcKRejHtC4Tq-9OWwY-owk41bbW02U&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="9e7b50e6-8ae3-4c49-a6d0-8087ee035f4a"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>