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

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

Good question Mary.  It has been our practice for quite awhile to have
WG meetings open at live meetings so I see no reason to change that in
the case of the STI but I think we may need to apply a "silent observer"
role because of the very short time frame that the Review Group has.
There was a lot of concern expressed in the DT on Saturday that the
Review Group needed to be kept as small as possible to maximize
efficiency.  
 
One of the tasks the group will need to do is to elect a chair and
possibly a vice chair or cochairs.  This may need to be the first item
of business.  I am not going to be representing the RySG on the Review
Group but if I can help facilitate the start, I am more than willing to
do so.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:31 AM
        To: Andrei Kolesnikov; Council GNSO; gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx; Margie
Milam; Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: RE: [council] RE: [gnso-sti] Meeting Details for STI
Review Team on Thursday Evening
        
        
        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.