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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Wed Oct 28 13:30:18 UTC 2009

Good question Mary.  It has been our practice for quite awhile to have
WG meetings open at live meetings so I see no reason to change that in
the case of the STI but I think we may need to apply a "silent observer"
role because of the very short time frame that the Review Group has.
There was a lot of concern expressed in the DT on Saturday that the
Review Group needed to be kept as small as possible to maximize
One of the tasks the group will need to do is to elect a chair and
possibly a vice chair or cochairs.  This may need to be the first item
of business.  I am not going to be representing the RySG on the Review
Group but if I can help facilitate the start, I am more than willing to
do so.


	From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong at piercelaw.edu] 
	Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:31 AM
	To: Andrei Kolesnikov; Council GNSO; gnso-sti at icann.org; Margie
Milam; Gomes, Chuck
	Subject: RE: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI
Review Team on Thursday Evening
	On a somewhat different note, can we confirm that the Thursday
meeting will be open also to interested members of each SG who may not
themselves be members of the STI?
	As I recall, the initial volunteers for the STI review team
agreed over the weekend that a leaner review team would be more
effective, but that the team would be expected to consult with and
solicit input from their SG. Since there were overall more volunteers
than capacity allowed, I think it'd be useful to take advantage of their
presence here in Seoul.
	Mary W S Wong
	Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
	Franklin Pierce Law Center
	Two White Street
	Concord, NH 03301
	Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
	Phone: 1-603-513-5143
	Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
	Selected writings available on the Social Science Research
Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

	>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at VERISIGN.COM> 10/28/2009 1:13 AM >>>
	That would be fine Andrei.  It is up to you, Olga and Terry to


		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.




		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



		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
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;


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/e0f94d6e/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list