[council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting

[Volker Greimann]

I second this request.

Volker Greimann
> Dear Jonathan and fellow Council members,
>
> I would like to request the addition of an item to the draft Beijing 
> GNSO Council meeting agenda, circulated earlier today, by proposing a 
> motion for discussion and adoption, copied below.
>
>
> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the 
> recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark 
> Clearing House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed 
> genesis and the strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO 
> council and a significant portion of the public comments. The 
> expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following 
> the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had appeared to 
> settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO 
> Council that specific measures therein represent substantive 
> policy-making rather than purely technical or operational 
> implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the 
> policy-making function by ICANN staff.
>
> The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the 
> established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in 
> a top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO 
> Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.
>
> As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down 
> and unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without 
> substantive justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the 
> implications of this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption 
> of the "Strawman Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of 
> the multi-stakeholder model.
>
> The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the 
> proposed course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that 
> the the extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the 
> inclusion of 50 additional terms not to be implemented until these 
> proposals have been approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after 
> careful consideration of their implications."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maria