[council] REVISED: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights

Thu May 16 09:39:10 UTC 2019

I do support the suggestion of moving #5 to the second phase of RPM PDP.

The reason to think so: adding recommendation#5 to the phase 1 of RPM PDP would definitely delay delivery of the results, 
also RPM PDP phase 2 was intended for URS/UDRP questions and the recommendation#5 seems to be natural addition to it.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

> On 15 May 2019, at 18:06, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry to come at this so late in the game.  Do we want to say (in red):
> “With respect to the remaining, fifth, recommendation from the Working Group, the GNSO Council has voted to refer the issue to Phase 2 of the GNSO PDP on Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs. As a result, the GNSO Council is not requesting any action from the Board on that recommendation at this time.”
> I don’t think we want to take Phase 1 off its already-late timeline by introducing this question, which seems like a Phase 2 question in any event. 
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
> Taft /
>  
> Paul D. McGrady / Partner
> Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
> 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
> Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
> Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
> Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
> www.taftlaw.com <http://www.taftlaw.com/> / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> 	
> Taft Bio <http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>	
> 	
> Taft vCard <http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>
> 
> Subscribe to our law updates <http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe>
>  
>  
>  
> 
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
> 
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:48 PM
> To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>; council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] REVISED: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> As noted below, staff has updated the Draft Recommendations Report to the Board on the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP recommendations – please see the attached markup for the two revisions that we made based on Marie’s comments.
>  
> The two revisions are:
> Updating Section 7 to add a reference to the GAC letter of 17 April 2019 and the Council’s decision; and
> Updating Section 10 to add a reference to the possible need to review or modify implementation work depending on the outcome of the RPM work on Recommendation 5.
>  
> Marie, FYI that we did not make any additional revisions for the following reasons:
> For Section 4, we read your comment as agreeing with the suggested text; and
> For Section 5, we advise including this suggestion either in a cover note (or separate letter), since the Recommendations Report concerns those recommendations approved for Board action. As such, Recommendation 5 (and any additional resources that may be required) is not part of the scope of this report.
>  
> We hope the revisions accurately reflect Marie’s suggestions.
>  
> Best regards,
> Steve & Mary
>  
> From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 11:02
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Thanks!
> Marie
>  
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 5:01 PM
> To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>; council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Hello Marie and everyone – as we did not see any further discussion following your message, staff have not edited or amended the Recommendations Report that was circulated for Council review. If, however, there are no objections to your suggestions, we are very happy to make the suggested changes before the 16 May meeting.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Steve & Mary
>  
> From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 10:52
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Subject: [Ext] RE: [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Sorry to come back to this, but may I please check – are paras 7 and 10 (& 5?) going ahead as originally drafted or are the below changes possible?
> Thanks again,
> Marie
>  
> From: Marie Pattullo 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:05 PM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Thanks, all.
> I am consulting with the BC membership, but some initial thoughts:
>  
> ·       4 - Agree that it makes sense to go to the same IRT as for the Red Cross.
> ·       5 - Although not for these Recs, notable that we will need legal expertise for Rec 5 in the new RPM group. Maybe worth a reference that we will need to budget for that?
> ·       7 - Think we should also mention the latest GAC letter [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_ismail-2Dto-2Ddrazek-2D17apr19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=EawAmokK5_Cwaqong6MiYb92lEnpg7QECGiTM3E_wSY&s=ryYZ_iQKlSZ3RPlj_YPFJDsemNdSGHcPoDWUfLcO6Y8&e=> (17th April).
> ·       10 – Perhaps we should be explicit that the implementation may need to be revisited depending on the outcome of the work on Rec 5?
>  
> Best
> Marie
>  
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 7:28 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft Recommendations Report on Curative Rights
>  
> Dear Councilors,
>  
> Please find attached for your review a draft Recommendations Report covering the four PDP recommendations on IGO-INGO Curative Rights that the Council approved at its meeting last month. As a reminder, under the ICANN Bylaws (Annex A, Section 8), the Council is required to submit a Recommendations Report to the Board (following Council approval of PDP recommendations and prior to any Board action).
>  
> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments on the document. As is customary, and subject to any contrary request by a Councilor, the staff expectation is that the report will be placed on the Council’s consent agenda for the 16 May meeting.  
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Steve & Mary
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190516/8a25aa8f/attachment-0001.html>