<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:"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:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 lang="EN-GB" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks very much Liz, this is very helpful. Hopefully we can get further views on this approach during our call a little later today,
and perhaps also consider Malcolm’s second stress test (on the UDRP expansion to DNS abuse). Regarding this DNS Abuse example, based on Liz’s input below, it seems to me the domain name registrant would not be in a position to challenge the policy per se,
because they would be out of time. Where does an actionable act of ICANN Staff or Board arise with the exercise of a DRS by a third party provider that – the registrant contends – is contrary to the Bylaws? Would this be in scope as a covered Action that
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white">“resulted from decisions of process-specific expert panels that are claimed to be inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">?”
Art 4.3(b)(A)</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white">(3)</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">. I’m not sure that it would. But
perhaps this is a circumstance where we should be exploring how to ensure the registrant knew (or ought to have known) earlier, before they were timed-out?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">For everyone’s convenience I am attaching the two stress tests. I am also attaching the short powerpoint of points for discussion from
a couple of calls ago – although we have been discussing the issues on the first slide we will also need to consider the second slide. Finally, again for convenience in case we need to refer, I am attaching the summary of public comment input on timing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Susan Payne<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Head of Legal Policy<b><br>
Com Laude | Valideus</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">D: +44 20 7421 8255<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">M: +44 7971 661175<br>
E: <a href="mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com">susan.payne@comlaude.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> IOT <iot-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Elizabeth Le via IOT<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 March 2021 23:19<br>
<b>To:</b> iot@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [IOT] Use Case on Time for Filing IRP with an Outer Limit<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear IOT members,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">During our last IOT discussion, ICANN org took an action item to provide in writing the use case on the time for filing an IRP with an outer time limit under the
EduTania scenario (Scenario 1) set forth by Malcolm. This example assumes that the current 120 day/1 year limitation is in place, though the timing could change based on the final outcomes of the IOT’s deliberation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Though ICANN approved the program five years before, in that fifth year ICANN org implements the 5-by5-by5 program in Ruritania. That act of implementation is an
ICANN staff action that could be challenged under IRP, assuming the claimant meets the other standing requirements. Specifically, the claimant’s filing of an IRP would be considered timely (i.e., not capable of challenge on timing grounds) so long as it filed
within 120 days after the claimant became aware of the material effect of action which is not more than 12 months from the date of the action (i.e., ICANN’s introduction of the program into Ruritania). The claimant, of course, has other procedural items it
must fulfill, such as alleging the harm caused by the act and that ICANN’s act was outside of the Bylaws/mission, but those obligations exist separate from the timing issue.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">As part of its timely IRP case, the claimant will be able to challenge the program and its implementation as applied to Ruritania. So, while the claimant would
be time barred from challenging the Board’s initial adoption of the program five years prior or potentially how the program was implemented in prior years (depending on the specific dates of roll-out), the claimant would not be time barred from challenging
the year 5 implementation. If there is Panel declaration in the claimant’s favor (i.e., that ICANN did in fact violate its Articles or Bylaws in the implementation), the ICANN Board would likely evaluate how that declaration impacts both the specific implementation
of the program and well as the program as a whole.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This example demonstrates that there are many touch points along the way where an action may be taken by either the Board (the initial approval) or the org (new
implementation action) that supports a claimant’s ability to act in a timely manner while challenging ICANN’s accountability. Claimants can challenge ICANN’s actions without introducing time frames (or lack thereof) for challenges that diminish the certainty
of ICANN’s actions. It also reduces the need to create new specific briefing processes to consider and weigh timeliness of claims, so that panels can more quickly proceed to the substantive merits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best regards,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Liz
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Elizabeth D. Le
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Associate General Counsel | ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Los Angeles, CA
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<hr>
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the
sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company
registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30
Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA
and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For
further information see <a href="https://comlaude.com" target="_blank">www.comlaude.com</a>
</body>
</html>