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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kristina,

The language comes directly from the Registration Abuse Policies
Implementation Drafting Team (see
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf). 
Of course, the DT's recommendations ultimately came from pages 26-33 of
the RAP WG Final Report
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf). 
So the motion just uses their words.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 12:28 pm
> To: 'Tim Ruiz' <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Tim,
>  
> A clarifying question:  Is the reference to "any 
> insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process" intended to 
> encompass 
> insufficiencies and inequalities from the perspective of all 
> stakeholders/segments of the ICANN community?  If not, from whose 
> perspective are the "insufficiencies/inequalities" intended to be identified?
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> K
>     
>   
>  From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>  [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:03 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report
> 
>    
> 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
> 
>