[IOT] IRP IoT message post-ICANN57

[Burr, Becky]

Not married to specific words - happy to work with other who want to
clarify.

But we can¹t hold ICANN accountable for a registry¹s or registrar¹s
implementation of a policy that is not mandated by ICANN.

J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 11/21/16, 5:59 PM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>Firstly, if this is the intended meaning, I think the wording needs to
>make it more clear, and less readily open to a different reading.
>
>Secondly, you've ignored the "and in no case more than a year after the
>action" clause (I paraphrase from memory) which operates independently of
>the 45 day limit. Isn't that one-year limit supposed to be fixed to the
>date of the adoption of the policy, rather than roll with the application
>of it to an individual case? Again, if not, the wording is terribly
>confusing. 
>
>Come to that, ICANN may not be applying the policy at all: it may be
>implemented by a Registry. A registrant may still wish to allege that the
>policy itself is facially improper, not merely that the Registry's
>interpretation was unreasonable, and so seek to have ICANN withdraw the
>policy.  But in such a case, what is the action of ICANN that the
>registrant wishes to dispute, and when would you date it for the purposes
>of this time bar? The Registry's implementing action cannot be the basis
>of an IRP, can it?
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 21 Nov 2016, at 22:28, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> 
>> I think this means that the 45 day period runs from the time ICANN
>> interprets or applies a policy in a way that violates the bylaws and
>> materially affects a specific individual/entity - but ONLY with respect
>>to
>> that individual/entity, only with respect that that particular
>>application
>> of the policy.  This has no relation to 45 days from the time the policy
>> is adopted - because no one can be materially affected until the policy
>>is
>