RE: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on Thursday Evening

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On a somewhat different note, can we confirm that the Thursday meeting
will be open also to interested members of each SG who may not
themselves be members of the STI?
 
As I recall, the initial volunteers for the STI review team agreed over
the weekend that a leaner review team would be more effective, but that
the team would be expected to consult with and solicit input from their
SG. Since there were overall more volunteers than capacity allowed, I
think it'd be useful to take advantage of their presence here in Seoul.
 
Thanks,
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/28/2009 1:13 AM >>>
That would be fine Andrei.  It is up to you, Olga and Terry to decide.
 
Chuck



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:39 AM
To: 'Margie Milam'; 'Council GNSO'; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team
on Thursday Evening


Should I propose myself as a NomCom rep into STI team? I missed this
one at the gNSO meeting today.
 
--andrei
 

From:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Council GNSO; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI Review Team on Thursday
Evening
Importance: High

 
Dear All,
 
We have reserved the Astor Room on the 36th Floor for a face to face
meeting of the STI Review Team on Thursday, October 29th from 5-6:30 pm.
    As a reminder, each of the Stakeholder Groups should identify their
representatives to the Review Team in accordance with the proposed
motion that will be voted upon at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday.
  For your information, the proposed motion is below.
 
Best regards,
 
Margie Milam
 
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
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 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.