Hi,
I have put the change in, but in a parenthetical until I hear from
Adrian and TIm about whether they accept the amendment or not.
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_oct_motions
a.
On 27 Oct 2009, at 18:03, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> All,
> I would like to propose the following friendly amendment to the
> motion for the response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council that
> Adrian proposed and Tim seconded:
>
> "The assistance of members of the Implementation Recommendation Team
> ("IRT") in answering questions about the IP Clearinghouse and
> Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be useful in the
> drafting process. The GNSO Council requests that those members of
> the IRT who worked on those recommendations be available to answer
> any such questions that may arise, and encourages the GNSO Review
> Team to avail itself of this resource."
>
> I have set forth below a revised proposed motion that includes the
> friendly amendment as the second and third sentences of #4.
>
> -*-
> 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 Implementation Recommendation Team ("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 GNSO's 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 GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of
> new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for
> achieving the GNSO's 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;
>
> 4. The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those
> areas where consensus has already been reached, and seek to develop
> consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be
> determined. The assistance of members of the IRT in answering
> questions about the IP Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension
> System recommendations may be useful to this work. The GNSO Council
> requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations
> be available to answer any such questions that may arise, and
> encourages the GNSO Review Team to avail itself of this resource; and
>
> 5. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO on
> or before the GNSO Council's meeting in late November, 2009.
>
> -*-
> K
>
>
>