[council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
Tim Ruiz
tim at godaddy.com
Mon Jan 10 19:04:59 UTC 2011
Hi Kristina,
The language comes directly from the Registration Abuse Policies
Implementation Drafting Team (see
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf).
Of course, the DT's recommendations ultimately came from pages 26-33 of
the RAP WG Final Report
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf).
So the motion just uses their words.
Tim
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>
> Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 12:28 pm
> To: 'Tim Ruiz' <tim at godaddy.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Tim,
>
> A clarifying question: Is the reference to "any
> insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process" intended to encompass
> insufficiencies and inequalities from the perspective of all
> stakeholders/segments of the ICANN community? If not, from whose
> perspective are the "insufficiencies/inequalities" intended to be identified?
>
> Thanks.
>
> K
>
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:03 PM
> To: 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/20110110/af7e145e/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list