RE: [council] Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team

[<HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I second this motion.

Debbie

 

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:34 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal 
recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team
Importance: High

 

Chuck,

 

I will make this motion and request Council exception so that it can be 
considered in today's meeting.

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane

Le 16 déc. 2009 à 23:11, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :





After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our 
Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and 
posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the 
Special Trademark Issues Review Team.  To make it easy to see the changes I 
made, I attached a redline version.  I also copied the amended motion below.

 

Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then 
someone to second it.  Because the motion has not been formally made, there 
does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are 
friendly.  Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. 
 The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process.

 

Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion.

 

Chuck

 

 

 


Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark 
Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09)


Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter
(http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf 
) to the GNSO requesting its review of the policy implications of certain 
trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO created 
the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights 
protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft 
Applicant Guidebook;

Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) to the GNSO Council describing an alternative 
proposal to address trademark concerns in the New gTLD Program that was 
supported by a consensus of its members;

Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports 
included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal recommended 
by the STI review team;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown 
by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI alternative 
proposal on an expedited basis;

RESOLVED, that the GNSO hereby approves the overall package of  recommendations 
contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI proposal to create a 
Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure as described 
in the STI Report is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff 
proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its 
accompanying memoranda;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the 
recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf) 
and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a 
forty-five (45) day public comment period to allow the ICANN community to 
comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization of the model to be 
included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

 

 

 

 

 

<Motion regarding STI Review Team Recommendations - amended 16 Dec 09.doc>