[WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus sample bylaws language and the comment summary

[Thomas Rickert]

I suggest we use exactly that then.

Best,
Thomas 

========
rickert.net

PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.

> Am 26.07.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
> 
> The issue of what happens to the IRP time period if the potential Complainant requests a CEP is handled in the CEP rules and procedures, found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cep-11apr13-en.pdf:
> 
> If	ICANN	and	the	requestor	have	not	agreed	to a	resolution	of	issues	upon	the	conclusion	of	the	cooperative	engagement	process,	or	if	issues	remain	for	a	request for	independent	review,	the	requestor’s	time	to	file	a	request	for	independent	review designated	in	the	Bylaws shall	be	extended	for	each	day	of	the cooperative	engagement	process,	but	in	no	event,	absent	mutual	written	agreement	by	the	 parties, shall	the	extension	be	for	more	than	fourteen	(14)	days.
> 
> The issue of "knowledge" (or "awareness") is often dealt with as Bruce suggests -- by requiring either "actual knowledge" (when the complainant actually knew) or "constructive knowledge" (when the complainant reasonably should have known).  If either of these time periods expires, the complainant can't bring an action.
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> The more I think about this 30 day thing, the more concerned I get – we need to provide for tolling the period for the pre filing mediation/CEP
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>> 
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>> 
>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>> 
>> 
>> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> Date: Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:31 AM
>> To: "WP2 at icann.org" <WP2 at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus sample bylaws language and the comment summary
>> 
>> Hello Becky,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The proposed bylaws language change with respect to the timing of an IRP proceeding:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> “A request for A request for independent review must be filed within thirty days of the posting
>> 
>> of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board Briefing
>> 
>> Materials, if available) thatthe requesting party becoming aware of the action
>> 
>> that it contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles of
>> 
>> Incorporation. Consolidated requests may be appropriate when the causal
>> 
>> connection between the circumstances of the requests and the harm is the same
>> 
>> for each of the requesting parties.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> How would you determine when a “requesting party” becomes aware of an action?     I expect it would be hard to determine when that event would happen – so this feels a little like that a party can file at any time after a decision – potentially years later.    This could have quite negative effect on a third party.   E.g if a new gTLD was allocated to an applicant, and then the requesting party complains years later.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Shouldn’t there be some limit based on what is reasonable – e.g 30 days after the requesting party would reasonably become aware … etc
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Alternatively – maybe leave the current language and increase the time period – e.g. from 30 to 60 or 90 days.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP2 mailing list
>> WP2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150726/8cce3aaf/attachment-0001.html>