RE: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
Avri,
Adrian made the motion, and I second it.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to
GNSO Council
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:23 pm
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Him,
I have aded this to the list of motions to be voted for the meeting.
are there names for motion and second?
thanks
a.
On 25 Oct 2009, at 09:40, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> All,
>
> During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team
> should be developed to review the issues and positions of members
> within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in
> order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter.
>
> Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on
> this motion on Wednesdayâs GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we
> understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we
> would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines,
> that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion
> (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday).
>
> Glen â could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair
> in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Adrian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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>>.
>
> WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSOâs 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 GNSOâs proposed policy on the introduction of
> new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for
> achieving the GNSOâs stated principles and objectives;
>
> WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to
> approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation;
>
> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the 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 councilâs meeting in late November, 2009.