[IOT] FW: Reviewing the consultation responses

[avri doria]

Hi,

Personally I would say:

not option 3.

On the other 2, I think that finding consensus (option 2) is the best
option, though I do not know if we can.

The one question I ask related to statutes of limitation if that the
absence of one is usually reserved for the worst capital crimes and the
like.  I do not believe that anything at ICANN reaches that level.  So I
do wonder whether 3, 7 or 11 years or the like, i.e. something shorter
than forever, can be agreed upon.

thanks

Avri

On 29-Nov-18 15:17, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
> Dear members of the IRP-IOT:
>
> On the call just concluded I mentioned three options that Malcolm had suggested to us on dealing with the comments on the Time-for-Filing issue.
>
> As requested on the call, I am forwarding that email from Malcolm back to the list. It is below.
>
> Malcolm said on today's call that in his opinion only option #1 is correct. That and other opinions, if any, will be discussed in our next call.
>
> We hope to meet December 13th at 19:00 UTC - please hold that date and watch for the invite.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> David McAuley
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> Verisign Inc.
> 703-948-4154
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 4:48 AM
> To: iot at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IOT] Reviewing the consultation responses
>
>
> I have been reading the consultation responses.
>
> Replies were only received from elements of the gNSO or stakeholders from within gNSO, other than a submission from Samantha Eisner[*].
> That is, there were no replies from GAC, individual governments, ccNSO or individual ccTLDs, ALAC, or from ASO, the NRO or the RIRs.
>
> Of these, each of the elements of the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCSG, ISPCP, BC, IPC) all wrote to support the removal of repose, and oppose its reintroduction.
>
> INTA, a trademark holders organisation, wrote individually to agree with removing repose, and asked for some other changes. The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) also supported our proposal, and asked for an adjustment to the wording for the purposes of clarification:
>
>  "In summary, the RrSG supports the IRP-IOT Draft Recommendations, but
>   encourages the IRT-IOT to allow 120 days from when an action/inaction
>   becomes part of a dispute and not just creates potential for it."
> (BC and IPC also wanted some changes: both asked for time spent during certain other processes to be discounted (e.g. during CEP, while waiting for a document release under the DIDP etc)
>
> The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and Versign both wrote to disagree with our proposal, and to ask for the reintroduction of a repose rule set at 24 or 36 months. Samantha Eisner maintained her long-standing disagreement with our proposal.
>
> We now need to consider how we proceed. As I see it, we have three options.
>
> 1. The first option is to acknowledge that a clear majority of the community that expressed a view has explicitly supported our proposal (and urged us to avoid reversion), and that most of the remainder has given its silent consent, with only one gNSO constituency in disagreement. We could note that this is unsurprising since the proposal was made in direct response to a broad consensus request from the community in the previous consultation. We would therefore to proceed to conclude our report on the basis of general community support short of full consensus, possibly making some or all of the amendments requested by some commenters.
>
> 2. The second option is to spend yet more time attempting to reach a compromise that could achieve full consensus.
>
> 3. The third option is to report that we are unable to reach full consensus, and instead include in our report a faithful representation of the opposing viewpoints and the supporting arguments. In other words, to admit failure and leave it for the Board to sort it out.
>
>
> If anyone can think of any further options, I would be interested to hear them.
>
>
> [*] From the text of Sam's reply, I interpret her submission as not representing ICANN's position, but rather staff advice from the legal team. If that is a mistake, I hope Sam will clarify.
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>