RE: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to Motion for the Response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am fine with this but we need the name of the person right away.  I am
assuming that each group will name their representatives after we vote
on the motion today.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:10 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Friendly Amendment to Motion 
> for the Response to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
> 
> 
> Talking to Bertrand de La Chapelle this evening, he asked me 
> to pass on the message that the GAC would appreciate having 
> one GAC observer added to the Review Team membership.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 27/10/2009 09:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> >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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>