<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to Motion for the Response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|