<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I largely agree with Malcolm on this point, and if we want to explore it in more depth, I'm happy to do so. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan</span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2017-05-11 07:55, Elizabeth Le wrote:<br>
> Here are some thoughts from ICANN regarding the statute of repose<br>
> issue and, in particular, how the lack of a time limit could impact<br>
> ICANN and the broader ICANN community:<br>
><br>
> The IRP IOT is discussing the issue of “repose,” which is has two<br>
> components:<br>
><br>
</span>> * How long after a person is aware (or reasonably should have been<br>
<span class="">> aware) of a harm caused by an act of ICANN that was taken in<br>
> contradiction to the Bylaws or Articles; and<br>
</span>> * How long of a period of time, in total, should pass before it is no<br>
<span class="">> longer reasonable for a person to claim they became aware of an action<br>
> of ICANN that they alleged caused them harm?<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>I could provide a point-by-point rebuttal, and if Liz and Sam would<br>
appreciate the courtesy I would be happy to do so (not least because I<br>
have already written it) but I fear others on this list would find it<br>
tiresome.<br>
<br>
So for now I will simply say that I disagree with much of what Liz has<br>
set out in her lengthy e-mail, and that I note that it does not actually<br>
disclose any actual, identifiable problems that would result from the<br>
120 day rule, only a difference of preference on approach.<br>
<br>
I think it is vitally important that no claim should be struck out by<br>
reason of being too late before it was even possible to file it. A<br>
person has to be "materially affected" to file a claim: they cannot be<br>
too late before they have been materially affected.<br>
<br>
Any rule that would have the effect of striking out the claim before it<br>
was possible to bring it is not in truth a deadline for filing, it is a<br>
covert attempt to rewrite (and narrow) the rules on standing set out in<br>
the bylaws.<br>
<br>
That cannot be right, nor is it within our power. We must act<br>
consistently with the bylaws.<br>
<br>
In a desperate attempt to draw a line under this, I would like to make a<br>
last attempt at a compromise, based on Liz's opening statement above:<br>
<br>
* add a presumption that it is not reasonable for a person to claim that<br>
they only became aware of the harm more than a year after the date they<br>
suffered it, and so became eligible to file the claim.<br>
<br>
I hope this is acceptable to ICANN Legal.<br>
<br>
If, on the other hand, ICANN Legal cannot be satisfied unless some<br>
classes of claim are immunised from ever being heard, irrespective of<br>
how promptly the claimant reacts to the harm they have suffered, then I<br>
think we must respectfully reject their position. To do otherwise would<br>
fundamentally dishonour both the bylaws and the transition settlement.<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://www.linx.net/publicaffairs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.linx.net/<wbr>publicaffairs</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
IOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IOT@icann.org">IOT@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/iot</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>