[GNSO-RPM-WG] DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:

[Kathy Kleiman]

	Paul, we did talk and disagreed about processes awhile back.  I've
gone back and can see the basis for your confusion.  There was an IPC
group (with all members selected by the IPC) which met to come up with
a set of new RPMs for New gTLDs - and went by the acronym of "IRT"
with a different meaning. This IPC-group then presented its result to
the GNSO and ICANN at the Sydney meeting, and there was great concern
over its proposals presented to the Board (including the first joint
ALAC-NCSG resolution). 

	The Board asked the GNSO to create an expedited policy group to
decide which additional RPMs met the approval of the full GNSO -- and
on request of the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council created a STI (Special
Trademarks Issues Review Team) which met with a pre-determined balance
of representation from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups, as well as
At-Large and other ACs. Very expedited timeframes.

	The Chair of the STI was David Maher of RySG and longtime General
Counsel of the Public Interest Registry (implementation review teams,
as you know, are run by ICANN Staff.). 

	The STI - we (as we both remember) - reported back in only a few
months to the GNSO Council.  Our STI Report was reviewed and adopted
by the GNSO Council and later the ICANN Board.  Our policy
recommendations then went to a traditional "IRT," for working through
the details of the policy recommendations (including URS and TMCH)
that we had made together.  

	I include the framing paragraphs of the STI report below and the link
-- and absolutely submit that overlapping acronyms make our lives
difficult!

	Overall, the URS, TMCH and UDRP all pass the criteria for being
GNSO-approved policies. And I must return to my concern that at least
part of your proposal gives policy-making powers to a future
"implementation review team" which is not the way we do things. 

	Best, Kathy

	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	STI Report - 

	"Background and Approach Taken

	On 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter1to the GNSO
requesting its review of the policy implications of certain trademark
protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program, as described
in the Draft Applicant Guidebook and accompanying memoranda.
Specifically, the Board Letter requested that the GNSO provide input
on whether it approves the proposed staff model,or, in the
alternative, the GNSO could propose an alternative that is equivalent
or more effective and implementable. In response, the GNSO adopted a
resolution creating the Special Trademarks Issues review team (STI) on
28 October 20092which included representatives from each Stakeholder
Group, At-Large, Nominating Committee Appointees, and the
GAC(identified on Annex 3), to analyze the specific rights protection
mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft
Applicant Guidebook."

	Page
2, https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_8000/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf

Links:
------
[1]
https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200929/c6abc876/attachment.html>