[ispcp] WG: [council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

Thu Nov 10 14:41:45 UTC 2011

All, pls. find attached a 2 competing motions on the UDRP to be voted on
the council meeting next week, one as separate attachment.
Any comments are welcome!

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 

________________________________

	Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
	Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. November 2011 18:33
	An: GNSO Council
	Betreff: [council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

	I know that Mary has submitted a motion on the UDRP, but I ask
that this one be submitted and voted upon in the event that Mary's
motion fails.  I am not pre-supposing it will, but here is a motion just
in case.

	This is in line with the discussions we all had in Dakar about
delaying a PDP on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but
still addressing the transfer issue now.  There are some links that need
to be inserted.

	Thanks.

	++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

	Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted
a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP
considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of
cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated
with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting
inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or
updated, and

	Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an
Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration
Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and

	Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011
[LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public
comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the
analysis and recommendations contained therein, and

	Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011
[LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the
"perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of
the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory
Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform
Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least
eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by
data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the
UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting."

	RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the
establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B
Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject
to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June
2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of
the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

	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.

	Jeffrey J. Neuman 
	Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
	21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
	Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax:
+1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>   / www.neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz/>  

________________________________

	The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20111110/1221657c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UDRPmotion.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 23040 bytes
Desc: UDRPmotion.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20111110/1221657c/UDRPmotion.doc>