[council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on Thursday Evening

[Gomes, Chuck]

That would be fine Andrei.  It is up to you, Olga and Terry to decide.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
	Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:39 AM
	To: 'Margie Milam'; 'Council GNSO'; gnso-sti at icann.org
	Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review
Team on Thursday Evening
	
	

	Should I propose myself as a NomCom rep into STI team? I missed
this one at the gNSO meeting today.

	 

	--andrei

	 

	From: owner-gnso-sti at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
	Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:19 AM
	To: Council GNSO; gnso-sti at icann.org
	Subject: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on
Thursday Evening
	Importance: High

	 

	Dear All,

	 

	We have reserved the Astor Room on the 36th Floor for a face to
face meeting of the STI Review Team on Thursday, October 29th from
5-6:30 pm.     As a reminder, each of the Stakeholder Groups should
identify their representatives to the Review Team in accordance with the
proposed motion that will be voted upon at the GNSO Council meeting on
Wednesday.   For your information, the proposed motion is below.

	 

	Best regards,

	 

	Margie Milam

	 

	Senior Policy Counselor

	ICANN 
	
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	 

	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
<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-
en.pdf> >>.

	 

	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.

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091028/a4339488/attachment.html>