Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Adrian.

I do hope, with regard to the extremely tight timeline we are working on
here, that there would be no objection to this motion being discussed on
Wednesday despite the fact that we haven¹t had the 7 days.

I would comment on part 1 of the motion that the review team seems
unbalanced. Do the CSG and the NCSG really feel they need 4 reps each on
this RT? Would the RT not be more efficient if it was a smaller size, say
each SG gets the same number of reps?

Stéphane


Le 25/10/09 02:40, « Adrian Kinderis » <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 Wednesday¹s 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 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf
> > >>.
>  
> WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO¹s 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
> GNSO¹s proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the
> appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO¹s 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 council¹s meeting in
> late November, 2009.
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature