[council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council

[Avri Doria]

thank you.

a.

On 27 Oct 2009, at 12:04, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> Avri,
>
> Adrian made the motion, and I second it.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to
> GNSO Council
> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Date: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:23 pm
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Him,
>
> I have aded this to the list of motions to be voted for the meeting.
>
> are there names for motion and second?
>
> thanks
> a.
>
> On 25 Oct 2009, at 09:40, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team
>> should be developed to review the issues and positions of members
>> within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in
>> order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter.
>>
>> Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on
>> this motion on Wednesday’s GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we
>> understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we
>> would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines,
>> that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion
>> (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday).
>>
>> Glen – could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair
>> in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks!
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate
>> certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of
>> trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from
>> the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by
>> ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009
>> <<Letter from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council>>.
>>
>> WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO’s view by December
>> 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second
>> level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are
>> consistent with the GNSO’s proposed policy on the introduction of
>> new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for
>> achieving the GNSO’s stated principles and objectives;
>>
>> WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to
>> approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation;
>>
>> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following
>> process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board:
>>
>> 1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of
>> representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry
>> Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the
>> Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Groups with four (4) representatives each, and At-Large with two (2)
>> representatives and one representative from the Nominating Committee
>> Appointees(1);
>>
>> 2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit
>> from their members their initial position statements on the
>> questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN
>> Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark
>> Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver
>> their initial position statements on November 4, and with final
>> position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009;
>>
>> 3. Such position statements will be summarized by
>> ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate
>> whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation
>> models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the
>> New gTLD Program; and
>>
>> The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas
>> where consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop
>> consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be
>> determined. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the
>> GNSO on or before the GNSO council’s meeting in late November, 2009.
>
>
>