<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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: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:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:255018022;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-220673920 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;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:297148242;
mso-list-template-ids:1751007560;}
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" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Susan and IOT Members:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Resending to include all list members before todays meeting. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:red">Please click on a link below to calendar a 15, 30, or 60 minute call with me:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:red"> <a href="calendly.com/saustin2/15min">
<span style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">a 15-minute call</span></a> </span>
</i></b><span style="color:red"> <a href="calendly.com/saustin2/30min">a 30-minute call</a>
<a href="calendly.com/saustin2/60min">a 60-minute call</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="129" height="51" style="width:1.3437in;height:.5312in" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.png@01D72BDF.F7E57370"><img border="0" width="40" height="53" style="width:.4166in;height:.552in" id="Picture_x0020_5" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D72BDF.F7E57370" alt="IntellectualPropertyLaw 100">
</span></b><a href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html"><b><span style="color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="150" height="36" style="width:1.5625in;height:.375in" id="Picture_x0020_6" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D72BDF.F7E57370" alt="microbadge[1]"></span></b></a> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 |
<a href="mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com">SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>From:</b> Scott Austin <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Elizabeth Le <elizabeth.le@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [IOT] Use Case on Time for Filing IRP with an Outer Limit<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sam, Susan and Elizabeth and IOT members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although the meeting was a while ago, my recollection of the discussion was slightly different, or perhaps Sam’s analysis brought this to mind de novo. I thought the distinction between the two “acts” by the Board was the adoption of the
policy versus the implementation (application?) of the policy. If Malcolm and/or Chris see this as a distinction without a difference or I am off course on this analysis please enlighten me. The policy when initially adopted may present a myriad of effects
on jurisdictions, cultures, populations, that cannot be realized until the Board subsequently “acts” to implement what they see as the intent of the policy (which may evolve with changes in the board, leadership, unanticipated effects of prior acts, etc.)
So it the policy at adoption teeming with unrealized, potential ultra vires acts that can only be determined upon implementing the policy in a manner that causes harm recognized only by a specific claimant, whose circumstances could never have been foreseen
when the board adopted the policy. Is the basis for NO statute of repose because we will never be able to anticipate every seed in a proposed policy that will sprout a harm to a future claimant. Or should the statute of repose be allowed based on something
used in more familiar contexts, such as personal injury, product defects and other bodies of precedent.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been promising to forward round a few readings that I thought might by useful to give context to the repose v limitation distinction. Attached please find:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">Wikipedia<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">Expertlaw<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">McGovern, The Status of Statutes of Limitation and Statutes of Repose
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">SRA Florida examples of statutes of limitation (pulled from research of current Florida Statutes).<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3">Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision
<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please don’t judge my scholarship based on these as they are more the result of ease of access than authority or timeliness as the sources range from something as unauthenticated as Wikipedia to something as impeccable as Karl Llewellyn.
The most in depth are dated but useful as a survey of applications of the statutes.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The materials attached include notes by an “expert” who lists practical bases for a statute of repose which should at least be considered to determine if any apply: fairness, judicial efficiency, finality and lobbying. Should we (have
we) formally considered each of these and dismissed all of them as inapplicable?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I include Llewellyn’s classic piece on statutory construction because I believe we are in a sense forced to construe many possible interpretations of each of the changes in the provisions we propose to make. His law review article, as well
as the Supreme Court decision featured in the Wikipedia item show that even among the greatest legal minds on the appellate bench, legendary law professors, even Congress, there is uncertainty ofver the distinction and at least one reasonable parry to every
thrust in the canons of construction. I hope you find these helpful to reaching a final version.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:red">Please click on a link below to calendar a 15, 30, or 60 minute call with me:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:red"> <a href="calendly.com/saustin2/15min">
<span style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">a 15-minute call</span></a> </span>
</i></b><span style="color:red"> <a href="calendly.com/saustin2/30min">a 30-minute call</a>
<a href="calendly.com/saustin2/60min">a 60-minute call</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="129" height="51" style="width:1.3437in;height:.5312in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D72BDF.F7E57370"><img border="0" width="40" height="53" style="width:.4166in;height:.552in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.jpg@01D72BDF.F7E57370" alt="IntellectualPropertyLaw 100"></span><span style="color:#1F497D">
</span></b><a href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html"><b><span style="color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="150" height="36" style="width:1.5625in;height:.375in" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D72BDF.F7E57370" alt="microbadge[1]"></span></b></a> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 |
<a href="mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com">SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>From:</b> IOT <<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org">iot-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Samantha Eisner via IOT<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 7, 2021 6:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Susan Payne <<a href="mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com">susan.payne@comlaude.com</a>>; Elizabeth Le <<a href="mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org">elizabeth.le@icann.org</a>>;
<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IOT] Use Case on Time for Filing IRP with an Outer Limit<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear IOT –<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Apologies for my absence at our last meeting. I went back and listened to the recording and noted that on the discussion of the Edutania example, there was a lot of focus on potential issues of “as applied” as
opposed to raising a challenge in the IRP to the Board’s initial approval of the program. I wanted to make sure ICANN Legal’s position on the question that Malcolm raised is clear. Around the 38<sup>th</sup> minute of the call, Malcolm asked: “Can Edutania
raise the argument that [ICANN org’s act to expand the program into Edutania] is ultra vires, or is that argument to be struck on the grounds that it should have been made five years ago [at the time of Board approval of the program] if it was to be made at
all? If I understand [Liz’s] advice correctly, because the specific action that is complained of is one that is proximate, is within time, then there’s no reason why that argument gets struck out. They can make whatever argument they’d like in respect of
an action that is within time to be challenged. And so the case can go ahead. Am I reading that correctly?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The answer is yes, that if Edutania raises that question within the period of repose as timed from ICANN org’s act bringing the program into Edutania, then the IRP claim is not time-barred. (There of course remain
the other relevant standing issues, but we will assume for the sake of example that those are met, therefore the IRP can proceed.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Much of the ensuing conversation seemed to be about matters of how a pleading would be drafted. For example, if Edutania stated that the action they were challenging was the introduction into Edutania, but drafted
an IRP focusing on the Board’s initial approval five years prior, then Edutania has a pleading issue and leaves itself open to a panel determination that Edutania is really trying to challenge a time-barred action. But if Edutania states and drafts an IRP
that focuses on how the recent act was ultra vires, that pleading issue is gone. Stated more simply, IRP claimants should be encouraged to clearly state IRPs based on the act they identify as giving rise to their injury/claim. With that caution, whether the
situation is “as applied” or “initial policy” really shouldn’t matter – the act that causes the ultra vires issue is the focus. The IOT’s conversation recognizes that there might be more than one act that causes an ultra vires issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As both Malcolm, Susan and Liz each discussed during the meeting, assuming that an IRP Panel declares the act to be ultra vires, it is then up to the Board to consider how to apply that declaration and whether
it needs application beyond the specific challenged act. While we cannot presume to know how the Board would respond, unless there were significant facts distinguishing the rollout in Edutania from the rollout in prior program years, if the Board applied only
the most narrow remedy to the Edutania rollout that may not be well received by the community. Any ensuing act of the Board could be subject to further IRP or other accountability mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking forward to continuing our conversation next week.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sam<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">IOT <<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org">iot-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Susan Payne via IOT <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Susan Payne <<a href="mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com">susan.payne@comlaude.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 9:23 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Liz Le <<a href="mailto:elizabeth.le@icann.org">elizabeth.le@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [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>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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">?”
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">. 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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Susan Payne</span></b><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">D: +44 20 7421 8255</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </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>From:</b> IOT <<a href="mailto:iot-bounces@icann.org">iot-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Elizabeth Le via IOT<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 March 2021 23:19<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:iot@icann.org">iot@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [IOT] Use Case on Time for Filing IRP with an Outer Limit<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear IOT members,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best regards,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Liz
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Elizabeth D. Le
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Associate General Counsel | ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Los Angeles, CA
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2Fjk0CC0RB6WH4grQcD2pQi%3Fdomain%3Durldefense.com&data=04%7C01%7Csaustin%40vlplawgroup.com%7Cd1070611bb004a2c8fee08d8fa1546a9%7C2b89c81abb684741b3b80eda20894d9f%7C0%7C0%7C637534316592042092%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PdU3wabkivYRqOgVABL7SEq0sBqn19IPU5g2cqBqFXM%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error,
please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>