<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17023" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Tim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>A clarifying question: Is the reference to "any
insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process" intended to encompass
insufficiencies and inequalities from the perspective of all
stakeholders/segments of the ICANN community? If not, from whose
perspective are the "insufficiencies/inequalities" intended to be
identified?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>Thanks.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>K</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT><SPAN
class=200182518-10012011><BR> </DIV></SPAN>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=200182518-10012011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:03 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
council@gnso.icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Motion to consider
regarding RAP WG final report<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response
to the<BR>RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the
timeline<BR>we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted
on at<BR>the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and
some<BR>discussion:<BR><BR>----- Begin Motion -----<BR><BR>Whereas the
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its<BR>report to the GNSO
Council on 29 May 2010
(see<BR>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),<BR>and<BR> <BR>Whereas
the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and<BR>decided to
form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed<BR>approach with
regard to the recommendations contained in the<BR>Registration Abuse Policies
Working Group Final Report, and<BR> <BR>Whereas the Registration Abuse
Policies Implementation Drafting Team<BR>submitted its proposed response to
the GNSO Council on 15 November
2010<BR>(see<BR>http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf),<BR>and<BR> <BR>Whereas
the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its<BR>Working Session
at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.<BR> <BR>RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council
instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward<BR>the two issues identified by the
RAP IDT as having low resource<BR>requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2
and Fake Renewal Notices<BR>recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for
resolution. ICANN<BR>Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council
with its<BR>feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in
a<BR>timely manner.<BR> <BR>RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an
Issues Report on the current<BR>state of the UDRP. This effort should
consider:<BR><BR>-- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting
to date, and<BR>any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the
process.<BR><BR>-- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within
the existing<BR>UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.<BR><BR>The
Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on<BR>this
issue might be managed.<BR><BR>------ End Motion
------<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Tim<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>