<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=iso-8859-1">
<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:"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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1441804464;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1362251792 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello IOT colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Prior to the IOT reconstitution I had taken a position (in my personal capacity) in favor of an overall time limitation for filing IRP claims.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Recently I took a new look at the issue – and on our call on October 6<sup>th</sup> said I would post my personal thoughts on the list. Here they are.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I remain in support of an overall time limitation – although 24 months may be more suitable than 12 months. I could support either. Here is my reasoning. Note that all portions marked in yellow below are emphasis added by me.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Bylaw 4.3:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 4.3(n)(iv)(A) states “<span style="color:black;background:white">(iv) The Rules of Procedure are intended
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">to ensure fundamental fairness and due process
</span>and <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">shall at a minimum</span> address the following elements: (A)</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">
</span><span style="color:black;background:white">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</span>”.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The phrase “<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">at a minimum</span>” means something, and I don’t believe that this bylaw provision precludes us from imposing a reasonable overall time limitation
<u>in addition</u> to establishing the time to file once the claimant is, or should be, aware of the action/inaction by ICANN.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note also that the bylaws in effect prior to the IANA Transition had this
<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2016-02-16-en#IV">provision</a> (at Article IV, Section 3.3) :<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black;background:white">A request for
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">independent review must be filed within thirty days of the posting of the minutes</span> of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing Materials, if available) that the requesting party contends
demonstrates that </span>ICANN<span style="color:black;background:white"> violated its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation. …</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, this notion of an overall time limitation is not new to ICANN IRP. I argue that the language in Bylaw Section 4.3(n)(iv)(A) is not preclusive of an overall time limit. If it was meant to be preclusive then the insertion of the “at a
minimum” language would have been contrary to that intent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my view, other provisions of Section 4.3(n) have a bearing here as well:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">4.3(n)(i): … [the rules for IRP shall] conform<span style="color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"> with international arbitration norms</span><span style="color:black;background:white"> and [be] streamlined,
easy to understand <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">and apply fairly to all parties</span>. …</span><span style="background:white"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black;background:white">4.3(n)(ii): The Rules of Procedure
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">shall be informed by international arbitration norms and consistent with the Purposes of the IRP</span>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These other provisions of Section 4.3(n) appear to establish reasonable guidelines for our work:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<u>Conformance with international arbitration customs/best practices.</u> Arbitrations typically arise in one of two contexts: the parties to a dispute agree ad hoc to arbitration (in which case timing is not an issue) or a contract term between them (or a
law or treaty) establishes arbitration as the method for dispute resolution. All contracts are subject to a body of national law somewhere in the world and most such bodies of law will have a statute of limitations on bringing civil contract or other actions.
By adopting an outside limit on time to file I submit that we would be following customary practice.
<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<u>Apply fairly to all parties:</u> ICANN, the only entity guaranteed to be a party in each IRP, is entitled to
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">fundamental fairness and due process</span> as well as claimants. <u> </u> <o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<u>Consistent with Purposes of IRP:</u> As you know, there are a number of purposes of IRP specified in Section 4.3(a). Here I want to point to three of them:<u><o:p></o:p></u></li></ol>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:black">(vi) R<span style="background:white">educe Disputes by
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">creating precedent</span> to guide and inform the Board, Officers …, Staff members, </span>Supporting Organizations<span style="background:white">, </span>Advisory Committees<span style="background:white">,
and the global Internet community in connection with policy development and implementation.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:black">(vii) Secure the accessible, transparent, efficient,
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">consistent, coherent, and just resolution of Disputes.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;background:white"><span style="color:black">(viii) <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
Lead to binding, final resolutions</span> consistent with international arbitration norms that are enforceable in any court with proper jurisdiction.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">As Chris said on the most recent call, reasonable
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">certainty</span> is a goal here. And, in my opinion, finality and predictability are two very important elements of certainty in this context. Certainty seems also important to the IRP Purposes of consistency,
coherence, and just resolution of disputes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">How tenable will the notion of precedence be if established IRP decisions can be challenged long after development?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="4" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<u>Ensure fundamental fairness: </u>While I certainly agree that fairness should run to all ‘parties,’ I go further and argue that fundamental fairness in IRPs runs to broader communities. As we saw in Bylaw Section 4.3(a)(vi) above,
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">the notion of precedent is to inform not only ICANN but also SOs, ACs, and the global Internet community</span>. They rely on a reasonably certain and predictable policy landscape to do their work and make
their decisions. Allowing for stale complaints could unreasonably jeopardize that landscape. <o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal">My understanding of the argument in opposition of an overall time limitation is that a claimant could be time barred before it ever learns of the alleged harm. If we extend the overall cap to 24 months (or even 36 months) that should
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">substantially mitigate</span> this concern while at the same time establishing a fair balance between permitting a claimant to redress harm, and ensuring fairness to ICANN, the community and to the process
itself. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And finally, since ICANN is governed by California law, statutes of limitations under that body of state law might help to inform the appropriate statute of limitations for lodging an IRP claim. Although there is no one single statute of
limitation for a claim that is perfectly analogous to an IRP, similar provisions under California law reasonably support the conclusion that statutes of limitations vary and do not follow a single approach. In addition, an IRP claim might also be analogized
to a claim under the California Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to which an aggrieved party may seek recourse through an administrative action against a private party based on its failure to comply with applicable rules and regulations of the relevant
agency. Of note, there is a <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
two-year</span> statute of limitations for filing damage complaints with the Public Utilities Commission. (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 735 (West))<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we get to drafting the Time for Filing Rule, I thus urge us to adopt this two-prong approach with the first prong being the days within which to file following becoming aware (or reasonably should have become aware) of the claim. And
the second prong would be an overall time limitation in the nature of a statute of repose that the panel must apply irrespective party action, perhaps tollable for one thing only – the pendency of active CEP.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a challenging issue and I appreciate the good-faith arguments on both sides. These are my thoughts on this important topic.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you and best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Verisign Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">703-948-4154<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>