[bc-gnso] URS Review
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Fri Dec 9 16:16:00 UTC 2011
Thanks, Jon. To give this some context, on today's call we talked about the motion (and substitute) on doing a UDRP Issues report
RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
Proposed friendly amendment (by David Taylor): RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be prepared with staff commencing the drafting of this report eighteen (18) months after the publication of at least a 100 UDRP or URS that cover at least 10 new gTLDs. Such report should be delivered to the GNSO Council within four (4) months of that trigger date.
The alternate motion requires a threshold of UDRP/URS case experience AND an 18-month experience period. Mikey and I asked whether the experience period could be shortened since it would begin only after the case threshold has been met.
Jon noted that a 12 month URS experience period was supported by the Special Trademark working group.
From: Jon Nevett <jon at nevett.net<mailto:jon at nevett.net>>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:03:56 -0500
To: "bc-GNSO at icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO at icann.org> GNSO list" <bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>>
Subject: [bc-gnso] URS Review
As discussed on the call, STI Recommendation 10.1 references unanimous consent for a mandatory URS review one year after it begins to operate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso