[CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Mon Sep 26 22:04:15 UTC 2016
Can we just agree on a "statute of limitation" on a whim? I had a cursory
look and seems like in some states in the US "if a claim would be time
barred in court, it would also be time barred in arbitration. " and there
might be other applicable laws. Should we not look into california law?
Also I don't think we can just agree on a period of time without
considering the real consequences for the claimant. Perhaps we need to look
into this further.
On 26 Sep 2016 10:53 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> OK, two eminent lawyers have suggested 6 months, I could go with 6 months
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 1:46 PM
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>; Mueller, Milton L <
> milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> Agreed Mike, and I was writing the exact same suggestion just as yours
> came in.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike
> Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 1:45 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Cc:* CCWG Accountability
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> I agree with Milton, but think the time should be even longer, six months
> is still a very short and rare "statute of limitations" for any legal
> claim. And I don't see what harm could occur even if it was one year. But
> six months seems a good compromise.
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Date of injury could occur at any time after a policy is passed. I would
> favor that as the marker. I would favor 3-4 months after date of injury as
> the time limit for filing a claim. I see no reason to have short time
> limits on time to file. People need to consult with lawyers, assess their
> damages, etc. No important policy objective is gained by limiting that time
> period to 45 days, relative to two or three months.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:26 AM
> *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; Mueller, Milton L <
> milton at gatech.edu>; 'MSSI Secretariat' <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>;
> 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> I can’t speak for Milton, but my own view is that for allegations of a
> violation of the Mission limitation it should be a rule that sets a limit
> (45 or 60 days) from the date on which the right to bring an action
> accrues. That, in turn, would be the later of the date of discovery or the
> date of injury (assuming that both knowledge of and injury by the alleged
> action are necessary components of standing to bring a suit).
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:55 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>;
> MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>; CCWG Accountability <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> Milton,
>
> What time frame you are looking for?
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2016-09-22 20:40 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>:
>
> The purpose of repose is certainty. But the purpose of mission-based
> limitations on ICANN’s ability to act are far more fundamental values
> involving the constraint on the corporation. I, too, left the room early,
> but had I been present I would have voiced opposition to an absolute
> limitations period that does not have a “discovery” or “effect” re-opener.
> It is entirely possible, given standing principles, for there to be a
> policy that has no effect on an adversely effected party for longer than 2
> years after adoption. An absolute bar would prevent the correction of that
> foundational error.
>
>
>
> I can even see a statute of limitations for issues not relating to the
> violation of core mission restrictions – but if we adopt a bar to action
> that does not allow for initiation upon discovery of the alleged error, we
> encourage concealment. I’m with Milton and Phil on this one
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil
> Corwin
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:36 AM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; MSSI Secretariat <
> mssi-secretariat at icann.org>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-
> community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> I think this is a valid point –
>
> My view is that IF there is to be a timer (which I do not accept), the
> timer has to start from the specific application of the policy to affected
> individuals, not with its passage or implementation.
>
>
>
> While still considering whether there should be any “statute of
> limitations” or “laches”-like time restrictions on the bringing of IRP
> challenges, certainly the clock should start running from the moment that
> actual harm is manifest, rather than from the time of adoption of a policy
> at which point the negative effect may be completely hypothetical or even
> unforeseeable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller,
> Milton L
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:22 AM
> *To:* MSSI Secretariat; CCWG Accountability
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] time limits on mission challenges
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I had to leave the call early before the time limits on the IRP challenges
> were discussed.
>
> I am a bit surprised, even shocked by the willingness of some people to
> impose strict limits on IRP challenges based on mission limitations. I
> cannot conceive of what the US or EU governments would be like if legal
> challenges to transgressions of fundamental rights had to conform to time
> limits. Help me understand this.
>
>
>
> I understand the argument about “finality” but I think people who make
> that argument are fundamentally misunderstanding what the mission
> limitations and IRP challenges are for and how they should function.
>
>
>
> ICANN policies easily take 2-3 years just to be fully implemented. The
> effects of mission-exceeding policies may not be actually felt by
> individuals or companies for 3, 4 or 5 years after they are passed. It is
> also possible that a policy that was passed and seems to be within the
> mission at the time it was passed, will later be applied in a way that
> shows that it can be used to exceed mission limitations.
>
>
>
> So what triggers this 2 year time limit? When does the clock start? Does
> it start with the _*passage*_ of the policy in the first place? Does it
> start with _*implementation*_? Does it start with the specific action or _
> *application*_ of the policy that results in the harm? At the very least,
> this needs to be clarified. My view is that IF there is to be a timer
> (which I do not accept), the timer has to start from the specific
> application of the policy to affected individuals, not with its passage or
> implementation.
>
>
>
> I think the misunderstanding that I saw in the notes is based on the idea
> that mission-based challenges will occur just after we _*pass*_ a policy.
> So people arguing for “finality” as saying they want it to be clear whether
> a policy is in effect or not. I understand this argument, but since mission
> limitation challenges are based on harm done to individuals, we have to
> talk of time limits in the context of when and where they are actually
> applied to individuals, and we have to give plenty of time for that harm to
> manifest itself.
>
>
>
> If, for example, you modify the UDRP in a way that turns out to enable
> abuse by parties who want to censor web sites, you can’t start a 2-year
> timer when the policy is passed or implemented, you have to start it when
> someone takes an action that effectively censors someone by applying the
> policy to their domain. If you don’t do that, the whole system could be
> gamed by the abusers simply waiting out the 2 year time limit and
> exploiting the policy after it expires.
>
>
>
> I also think we should be able to object to a policy as transgressing
> mission limitations when it is passed, just as in liberal democracies one
> can mount a legal challenge to a law as being unconstitutional before it
> actually goes into effect. But these kinds of appeals could legitimately
> have a time limit.
>
>
>
> Sorry I was not able to be there to make these points in person.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *MSSI
> Secretariat
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:41 PM
> *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for CCWG ACCT
> Meeting #5_21 September
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Meeting
> #5 – 20 September 2016 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/Pg6sAw
>
>
>
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Brenda Brewer
>
> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEMS*:
>
> 1. Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if they are a
> complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented today.
> Rapporteurs to deliver their subgroups paper 3 weeks (October 5th) prior
> to Hyderabad outlining work.
>
> 2. Staff to review resources to see if there is a means to do interviews
> with leaders to assist in drafting positions. Sub-groups to advise staff if
> interested in this assistance.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
> *Notes (including key elements of the chat):*
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> · Sub-group rapporteurs should advise in the next two weeks if
> they are a complex topic or not for purposes of scheduling as presented
> today
>
> *1. Welcome/SOI*
>
> · Thomas Rickert: No one on phone only. No new SOIs. Mathieu Weill
> and Leon Sanchez send their apologies.
>
> *2. Update on US Senate Hearing on IANA Transition*
>
> · Steve DelBianco: Theme for this call is keep calm and carry on.
> Background on current situation vs Congress. Two main factors for
> conservatives, Political
> positioning vs a liberal administration and the disrespect of Congress vs
> the transition from ICANN and NTIA. We should assume there will be at least
> a 9
> week delay in transition. We should not split the transition and
> accountability Bylaws.
>
> · David McAuley (RySG): We have a third witness on this call as
> well - Paul
>
> · Paul Rosenzweig: Thanks David -- I'm glad you noticed. I don't
> have any need to intervene
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): oh, yes, Paul's point of view
> would also be useful
>
> · Greg Shatan: Intellectual Property interests have a variety of
> views.
>
> · Paul Rosenzweig: Jeff -- what would you like to know
> specifically -- I'll answer if I can
>
> · Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): Whether your assessment is the same as
> Steve's and whether you believe the outcomes are as Steve has said (in your
> view)
>
> · Brett Schaefer: Why shouldn't the accountability reforms be
> implemented now if the transition is delayed? The bulk of them are not
> dependent on the transition. Indeed,
> Bruce and Cherine said that that was the original plan in Morocco. What if
> the transition is delayed longer than 9 weeks? Are you prepared to wait
> forever for
> accountability implementation?
>
> · Julf Helsingius (GNSO NCPH NCA): I don't see any reason to wait.
>
> · Edward Morris: Agree with Brett and Julf.
>
> · Avri Doria: Do we really need to split the Bylaws why not just
> include a statement that the PTI stuff is not active until the transition.
>
> · Alan Greenberg: @Brett, there is a lot of work to do to split
> the Bylaws and that will take time. I presume that will not be done until
> it is obvious the
> delay will be substantial. (> 9 weeks). But that is hypothesis on my part.
>
> · Paul Rosenzweig: Assuming it is part of the bill at all ...
>
> · Philip Corwin: Near-term Board implementation of accountability
> measures in face of a delay would be very helpful in ending the
> Congressional roadblock, while
> refusal to do so would add fodder to critics, IMHO
>
> · Edward Morris: PTI is roughly 5% of the new Bylaws.
>
> · Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): +1 Philip
>
> · Edward Morris: Good point Phil.
>
> · Matthew Shears: interesting point Phil
>
> · Alan Greenberg: Even a rider saying that parts are inoperable is
> a Bylaw change that must go through due process which is time-consuming.
>
> · Greg Shatan: @Milton, not denying that some elements of the IP
> community are playing a role; we saw one as a witness in the Hearing.
> However, "IP interests" are
> not monolithic and there is a diversity of views, including support for
> the transition and for the multi-stakeholder model.
>
> · Philip Corwin: It's not just the IANA contract. NTIA must also
> end RZMA contract with Verisign so that it can contract directly with ICANN
> to perform root zone
> maintenance. Until that is in place ICANN would have no power to direct
> root zone changes.
>
> · Milton Mueller: Uncertain how we could continue with the
> transition if there is a new administration.
>
> · Steve DelBianco: many variables. We lose nothing by waiting
> until the election is done.
>
> · Edward Morris: Matt, I am not an expert on the "test drive"
> strategy. What I do know is that by delaying implementation we are playing
> into the hands of those
> who are opposing the transition.
>
> · Steve DelBianco: "test drive" makes no sense, since we will not
> "test" our powers in a few months or even a few years. Test Drive is
> equivalent to indefinite delay.
>
> · Matthew Shears: agree Steve
>
> · Milton Mueller: Yes, Ed, we need to get as many of the
> accountability reforms implemented as possible
>
> · Megan Richards, European Commission: @Steve -agree on
> ineffectual test drive.
>
> · Paul Rosenzweig: We lose nothing by waiting. Some of the
> opposition ICANN can do nothing about. We will know by the end of tomorrow
> if a new rider has been included or not.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: This is purely an American political issue and
> we should just move on.
>
> · Steve DelBianco: I agree with Paul, that events are moving this
> week. Let's not game-out all the outcomes. Let's get back to work on WS2
>
> · Steve DelBianco: WS2 implementation is part of the Board's
> commitment -- regardless of IANA contract
>
> · David McAuley: +1 @Steve
>
> · Edward Morris: Agree Steve
>
> · Avri Doria: Steve, rights, and after Sept 30, that commitment
> comes due.
>
> · Sivasubramanian M 2: Is the US budgetary allocation / NTIA
> spending on Transition so substantial that the US budgetary process becomes
> one of the obstructions?
>
> · Steve Delbianco: asper previous answer.
>
> · Thomas Rickert: We have done a great job so far and we should be
> patient and wait for the next few weeks. As to the possibility of a Test
> Drive - we have baked
> extensive consultation between the Board and the community which should
> obviate the need for the community to exercise the community power would
> make a test drive difficult.
>
> *3. WS2 Planning and Timeline*
>
> · Thomas Rickert: WS2 work plan. There is light engagement by the
> community currently possibly due to the political uncertainty or fatigue.
> All items in WS2 are
> important and need to get done. We probably need to readjust our work plan
> to be able to deliver by the end of this FY17.
>
> · Karen Mulberry: (presentation of slides on Planning and
> progress). Public Consultations now planned in February and May 2017.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: We should not revisit what has been decided in
> WS1.
>
> · Sivasubramanian M: WS2 ought not to be time-limited earlier
> there was a discussion on Accountability as a continuous, ongoing process.
>
> · Matthew Shears: a number of the issues under discussion are
> shaping the discussion on transition in the political sphere - these issues
> should be dealt with asap particularly if we are going to stagger from CR
> to CR
>
> · Edward Morris: Agreed Matt.
>
> · Niels ten Oever: @Siva - if we don't set deadlines this work
> will never end.
>
> · Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Setting public comment periods
> intersessionally ahead of ICANN 58 and 59 respectively so that these
> meetings can initiate their finalization
> with maximum visibility for community is very sensible and practicable
> approach.
>
> · Greg Shatan: It is important for us to recognize that the work
> in the sub-groups cannot advance if people do not participate. It is
> important to have active participation
> on the list and in Google docs between meetings.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I have a certain difficulty in
> planning too much ahead given the present uncertainty regarding the whole
> process
>
> · Avri Doria: it is hard to get people to focus on WS2 while WS1
> remains only a possibility
>
> · Thomas Rickert: There is effectively little interest in most
> sub-groups currently. Most participants seem to be waiting to see something
> to comment on vs writing something.
>
> · Christopher Wilkinson: Agree we need more participation in the
> sub-groups, its not fatigue its just a mountain of work.
>
> · Avri Doria: Blank sheets of paper are an insurmountable problem
> for many people.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): clear the overall situation and
> then we will be able to set clear deadlines
>
> · Mark Carvell (UK GAC rep): Much of WS2 are key enhancements and
> strengthening of the ICANN model that need to be developed anyway
> regardless of current political uncertainty.
>
> · Jeff Neuman: And there is a lot of other substantive work going
> on in the ICANN community at the moment.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Jeff is right
>
> · Tijani Ben Jemaa: need to focus on what is required of WS2 by
> WS1.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I would be interested in having
> figures about the engagement from the community - volunteer fatigue is
> melting active participants to a reduced group.
>
> · Jeff Neuman: @jorge, and my fear is that the community has
> fatigue on the non-policy issues that ICANN is engaged in. In other words,
> ICANN is supposed to coordinate substantive policy.....but we have spent
> the last 18 months+ on procedural accountability issues. What good is an
> incredibly accountable organization if it cannot perform
> the substantive tasks it was formed to do.
>
> · Thomas Rickert: ACTION ITEM: Sub-group rapporteurs should advise
> in the next two weeks if they are a complex topic or not for purposes of
> scheduling as presented
> today. Unless rapporteurs can deliver a paper 3 weeks prior to Hyderabad
> we need to do something else. One option could be to do interviews with
> leaders by staff to
> write down positions? Minor support and no objection. This is optional and
> sub-groups that want to use this should advise us of this.
>
> · Jeff Neuman: Lots of substantive issues on ICANN's plate now:
> RDDS/WHois, New gTLD Reviews, SUbsequent Procedures, Rights Protection
> Mechanisms, Privacy Proxy, Universal Acceptance / Awareness, etc.
>
> · Michael Karanicolas: Personally - I'd rather draft something
> myself than provide input by phone.
>
> · Niels ten Oever: Is there staff capacity for that? Sounds good
> to me! Would save a lot of time.
>
> · Sebastien Bachollet: I we agree to this schedule we should stick
> to it.
>
> · Thomas Rickert: No opposition to using the new project plan and
> ensure that we follow it.
>
> *4. Update on Action Item from 30 August Plenary*
>
> · Karen Mulberry: There are meetings on the 9th.
>
> · Sebastien Bachollet: the last day is for the new bodies only.
>
> *5. WS2 Budget Update and Travel to ICANN 57 Hyderabad*
>
> · Bernard Turcotte: (Presentation of slides)
>
> · Tijani Ben Jemaa: Rules are different at each embassy.
>
> · Alan Greenberg: Varies greatly from one country to another for
> an Indian visa - very complex.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: this visa caused issues for many. ICANN should
> come to some arrangements with countries it holds events in.
>
> *6. WS1 WP-IOT-IOT (IRP Implementation Oversight Team)*
>
> · Becky Burr: (Presentation of the slides). First issue is the *application
> of subsequent modifications rules of existing IRPs.*
>
> · Avri Doria: Support and explanation of some details regarding
> the alternative.
>
> · Kavous Arasteh: Normally rules are not retroactively applied -
> but in this case I would support this.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): I'm not sure whether others feel
> the same, but without having some prior info in writing on the issues
> explained by Becky and
> Avri it is extremely difficult to follow.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: Jorge, yes ,it is difficult but the way it has
> been drafted is quite understandable
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): Thanks for that clarifications
> Becky and Thomas
>
> · David McAuley (RySG) 2: I was active in the sub-team discussions
> and this alternative seems a fair compromise of the positions stated.
>
> · Becky Burr: Next is *Deadline to file*, There are several
> alternatives.
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): under the current rules there
> seems to be a short timeframe for filing, but it is only triggers if you
> have or should have
> awareness. In the new alt 2 24 months would be a hard stop: even if you
> have no clue you would not be able to file a dispute if you gain awareness
> afterwards...
>
> · Malcolm Hutty: The issue is that we have different disputes,
> originally there were only process disputes and claimants usually know very
> quickly if
> there is an issue. but under the new rules there are also claims vs ICANN
> following its own Bylaws which is different. As such Alternative 2 is not
> good. Would
> be ok for a fixed delay for procedural claims. The 45 days seems a very
> tight timeline - does this make sense for the EC to make a claim.
>
> · Chris Disspain: Malcolm, how do you ensure that folks do not
> take actions over time that make them effected so that they can bring a
> claim and could you
> give me an example of something that would require your formulation?
>
> · Chris Wilson: some statute of limitations for all claims makes
> sense.
>
> · Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Malcolm's point about the EC
> decision process is quite compelling
>
> · Greg Shatan: Agree with Chris, there needs to be some finality.
>
> · David McAuley: Have agreed that 45 days is too short but support
> Alternative 2. We need some finality.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: Malcolm, you said 45 days is too short. what
> time frame in your view is not short
>
> · Jorge Cancio (GAG Switzerland): on the other hand an absence of
> a statute of limitations weakens legal certainty
>
> · Alan Greenberg: @Malcom, what deadline for filing would you
> propose for a harm that is delayed?
>
> · Greg Shatan: I could see expanding the 45 days, at least for the
> EC.
>
> · Greg Shatan: I support Alternative 2.
>
> · Becky Burr: Please note that the 45 days is tolled once CEP is
> initiated, so as a practical matter you only need to signal. Any other
> views?
>
> · Alan Greenberg: Alos support Alternative 2 - there has to be
> finality.
>
> · Malcolm Hutty: If we are agreeing to a fixed time then we are
> doing something different from a court and is not compatible with the
> Bylaws. alternative depends
> on a watchful community but someone may not be harmed and therefore cannot
> file.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: Perhaps 24 months may be argued to be too long?
>
> · Chris Wilson: For sure! But 2 years is a long time, IMO.
>
> · Chris Disspain: my preference would be fewer than 24 but I can
> accept it if that is the consensus view
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: Could be change 24 by 12 months?
>
> · Chris Disspain: that would be better in my view Kavouss
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: I have not seen in any analogous case putting
> such a long period like 24 months
>
> · Chris Disspain: all of these things are a balance and need to be
> both accommodating and workable
>
> · Becky Burr: but anyone could apply for a name, be denied, and
> challenge - so I’m not moved by the no standing - the potential lack of
> motivation is a legitimate concern.
>
> · David McAuley (RySG) 2: +1 @Chris
>
> · Greg Shatan: 24 months seems an acceptable compromise.
>
> Kavous
>
>
>
> · s Arasteh: Supports alternative 2 but not more than 12 months.
>
> · David McAuley (RySG) 2: it is a difficult thing to calculate but
> the IoT seemed to think 24 months is right if alternative 2 is used
>
> · Chris Disspain: it is the members of the community to have to
> work most closely within the ICANN framework....especially the contracting
> parties...they are
> entitled to a degree of certainty about position so that they can get on
> with what they need to do
>
> · Greg Shatan: I think 24 months is appropriate. I see calls for
> longer and shorter times, which indicates we got it right.
>
> · Becky Burr: Seem to be gravitating towards Alternative 2 with
> some time. third issue is *Cross Examination of Witnesses at hearings*.
>
> · David McAuley: Support alternative 1 strongly. The panel needs
> to be given a reasonably high bar to avoid trials each time.
>
> · Kavouss Arasteh: Prefer Alternative 2 but could live with
> Alternative 1.
>
> · Greg Shatan: do not really support any of these. If we have
> witnesses, we need to be able to cross examine.
>
> ·
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160927/90c2d6a5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list