[council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I know that Mary has submitted a motion on the UDRP, but I ask that this one be 
submitted and voted upon in the event that Mary's motion fails.  I am not 
pre-supposing it will, but here is a motion just in case.

This is in line with the discussions we all had in Dakar about delaying a PDP 
on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but still addressing the 
transfer issue now.  There are some links that need to be inserted.

Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report 
the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), 
recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both 
(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any 
insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the 
definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs 
to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in 
accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working 
Group [LINK], and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and 
series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow 
for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations 
contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which 
ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the 
majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory 
Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be 
delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been 
in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to 
be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled 
on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting."

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment 
of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group 
concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, 
which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to 
consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the 
Current State of the UDRP.


RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the 
current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing 
and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be 
delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following 
the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.