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

[David Post]

Isn't this something that we could leave for the 
IRP itself to deal with in its 
processes/procedures?  Why do we have to specify 
a limitations period in advance?
David


At 12:42 PM 7/25/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="_000_D1D9347138C0Ebeckyburrneustarbiz_"
>
>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  / 
><mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>From: Bruce Tonkin 
><<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>Date: Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:31 AM
>To: "<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150727/2495970b/attachment.html>