<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
thank you.
a.
On 27 Oct 2009, at 12:04, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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 Wednesday’s 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 – 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 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; 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 council’s meeting in late November, 2009.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|