[council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report

[Neuman, Jeff]

I would like to second this motion. Thanks Tim.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz



From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 02:03 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report

A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response to the
RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the timeline
we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted on at
the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and some
discussion:

----- Begin Motion -----

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its
report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
and

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and
decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed
approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team
submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010
(see
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf),
and

Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its
Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.

RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward
the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource
requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices
recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN
Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its
feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a
timely manner.

RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current
state of the UDRP. This effort should consider:

-- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and
any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.

-- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing
UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.

The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on
this issue might be managed.

------ End Motion ------

Thanks,
Tim


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110105/17640fff/attachment.html>