Re: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tim.

Glen, I think there are a number of motions for the Jan 13 meeting that have 
yet to be seconded. Please send a reminder to list as to what those motions are 
that need a second tomorrow, once the deadline for making motions has passed.

Please also update agenda item 4.5 in light of Tim's motion to read:

4.5 Refer to motion on RAP WG final report (insert link).

4.6 Discussion

4.7 Vote

It is very clear that with these late additions to the agenda, it will be 
difficult for us to keep to the time I had originally allocated for each agenda 
item. I therefore plan to allow for limited discussion time on those items that 
are very full and encourage you all to start discussing them on the list in 
advance of our Jan 13 meeting in order to help us make up as much time as 
possible during that meeting.

Thanks.

Stéphane

Le 5 janv. 2011 à 20:03, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response to the
> RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the timeline
> we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted on at
> the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and some
> discussion:
> 
> ----- Begin Motion -----
> 
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its
> report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
> and
>  
> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and
> decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed
> approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the
> Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and
>  
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team
> submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010
> (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf),
> and
>  
> Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its
> Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.
>  
> RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward
> the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource
> requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices
> recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN
> Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its
> feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a
> timely manner.
>  
> RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current
> state of the UDRP. This effort should consider:
> 
> -- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and
> any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.
> 
> -- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing
> UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.
> 
> The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on
> this issue might be managed.
> 
> ------ End Motion ------
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
>