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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.