Re: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to Motion for the Response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
Although voteless, I strongly support this. I think that a key to us being able to come up with any sort of acceptable solution in the short time available is to understand the original needs that the IRT solutions were trying to address. Without that, we may just come up with a new set of solutions that don't come close to meeting those needs.
Alan At 27/10/2009 05:03 AM, 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 <<<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf>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; and5. 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