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

David Post david.g.post at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 14:51:16 UTC 2015 

To me, the question is: why do we think we're in 
a better position, now, to determine what an 
appropriate limitations period should be, than 
the IRP itself will be, when it sees how the process works in practice?

There's an awful lot we don't (and can't) know 
about how this process actually will work, all of 
which bears upon the question of what a 
reasonable limitations period should be: will the 
IRP be flooded with claims, or will it have 
little to do?  will there be lots of frivolous 
claims, or few?  lots of claims asking it to do 
things/decide cases it's not authorized to hear, 
or few?  what kind of "pleading requirements" is 
it going to impose on claimants before a case can be opened?

Perhaps there's a concern that the IRP will make 
the "wrong" decision - that it will adopt a 
too-short period (because it doesn't want 
additional work) or a too-long period (because 
it's power-hungry and wants to involve itself in 
ICANN affairs more than is appropriate).  I can 
see that - though it hearkens back to my views 
about the importance of making the IRP a true 
institution within ICANN rather than just a 
faceless collection of arbitrators who are mostly 
concerned with other things; I think part of the 
WG's task is to design an IRP that will make 
sensible decisions, including decisions about its 
own procedures and processes, down the road.

I share the concern about claims being open 
forever - but a 30 day period swings much too 
far, in my opinion, in the other direction.  It's 
an alarmingly short period of time - particularly 
if there are complicated filing requirements (as 
there well may be).  if there's going to be a 
limit stated in the bylaws, i'd suggest making it 
a long period to start with (no claims after 1 
year, or even 2 years), subject to the IRP's power to revise.

[If I remember correctly, the IRP's own 
rules/procedures have to be approved by the 
Community - is that right?  If not, it should be 
- that's a better way to protect against 
ill-advised IRP procedures/processes than having 
us try to spell them out in advance, imo.

David

At 05:08 PM 7/27/2015, Greg Shatan wrote:
>The IRP can determine whether a limitation 
>period bars an IRP, but they need to be applying 
>some defined period, and this period needs to be 
>consistent for all complainants.
>
>If there is no time period (or formula for 
>arriving at a time period) for IRPs stated in 
>the bylaws (or in the rules and procedures, if 
>we want to punt a little bit), no IRP will be 
>barred.  There would be no basis for a 
>bar.  Instead, it will be available to a complainant for all time.
>
>I don't think that sounds good to me.
>
>Greg
>
>On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Malcolm Hutty 
><<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>
>
>On 27/07/2015 21:43, Burr, Becky wrote:
> > That seems sensible to me
>
>So do you intend to remove the existing limit, and specify that the IRP
>can itself determine a reasonable time-bar?
>
>That seems quite a big piece of discretion to hand it: what it decides
>will affect the way the IRP looks quite a lot.
>
>For my part, whatever the time limit should be, it is very important
>that the clock only start ticking when the applicant has experiencd
>whatever it is they wish to complain about, or is aware that they are
>likely to experience it. The present approach - starting the clock when
>the Board takes its decision - is no longer fit for purpose. It was
>designed for when IRP cases were effectively limited to contracted parties.
>
>We do not want our time limit to effectively debar non-contracted
>parties who know nothing about ICANN from ever bringing a complaint.
>
>I think this should be specified in the Bylaws.
>
> >
> > J. Beckwith Burr
> >
> > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> >
> > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> >
> > Office: <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>+ 1.202.533.2932Â  Mobile:
> > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>+1.202.352.6367Â  / 
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz
> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / <http://www.neustar.biz>www.neustar.biz
> >
> >
> > From: David Post 
> <<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com 
> <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
> > Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM
> > To: Becky Burr 
> <<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz 
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> > Cc: Bruce Tonkin 
> <<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>, 
> "<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org
> > <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>" 
> <<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus sample bylaws
> > language and the comment summary
> >
> > 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;
> >>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  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: <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>+ 
> 1.202.533.2932Â  Mobile:Â  <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>+1.202.352.6367Â  /
> >> 
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz 
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> /
> >> <http://www.neustar.biz>www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> >>
> >> From: Bruce Tonkin 
> <<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> >> <mailto: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>" <<mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org
> >> <mailto: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 caan 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 increease the time
> >> period – e.g. from 30 to 60 or 90 days.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bruce Tonkin
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WP2 mailing list
> >> <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>
> >> 
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
> >> 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp2&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=45ha7ijUSShcMnUJqDwfzDUnJjMkMmkR1KbGauQJpno&e=>
> >
> > *******************************
> > David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> > Foundation
> > blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=xaEAsKtTS7zpk7-yKBnscwHrcrjC9EVm7Oh262_h49M&e=>book
> > (Jefferson's 
> Moose)Â  <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=uM7352AWlE5xVa8yoG0L-5mdpe1x-SSRtiX76IYGO50&e=>
> > music <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
> > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=-hz2E2fMrdSb7NY0HOElRP-1Pij5y19kvB47QkcD5J4&e=>publications
> > etc.  <http://www.davidpost.com>http://www.davidpost.com
> > 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0-25C2-25A0_&d=AwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=KHtNBFAfs2Wsc0WBFs8uEwqFYvujsUnnN7VF0NWZxXM&s=Orueb-zlDxfxaAOPf-NA3gwoi716R30h9Po7O6LtYEY&e=>
> > *******************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WP2 mailing list
> > <mailto:WP2 at icann.org>WP2 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
> >
>
>--
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Malcolm Hutty | tel: 
><tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>+44 20 7645 3523
>Â  Â Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>Â London Internet Exchange | 
><http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â London Internet Exchange Ltd
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>Â  Â  Â  Â Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP2 mailing list
><mailto:WP2 at icann.org>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/20150728/f160c338/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the WP2 mailing list