<html>
<body>
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?<br>
David<br><br>
<br>
At 12:42 PM 7/25/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_D1D9347138C0Ebeckyburrneustarbiz_"<br><br>
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<br><br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br><br>
<b>Neustar, Inc. /</b> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br><br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br><br>
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<br>
From: Bruce Tonkin
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>><br>
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:31 AM<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WP2] current state of IRP checklist plus sample bylaws
language and the comment summary<br><br>
Hello Becky,<br>
<br>
The proposed bylaws language change with respect to the timing of an IRP
proceeding:<br>
<br>
“A request for A request for independent review must be filed within
thirty days of <s>the posting<br>
of the minutes of the Board meeting (and the accompanying Board
Briefing<br>
Materials, if available) that</s>the requesting party becoming aware of
the action<br>
that it contends demonstrates that ICANN violated its Bylaws or Articles
of<br>
Incorporation. Consolidated requests may be appropriate when the
causal<br>
connection between the circumstances of the requests and the harm is the
same<br>
for each of the requesting parties.”<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Shouldn’t there be some limit based on what is reasonable – e.g 30 days
after the requesting party would reasonably become aware … etc<br>
<br>
Alternatively – maybe leave the current language and increase the time
period – e.g. from 30 to 60 or 90 days.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
WP2@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a></blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </body>
</html>