Re: [council] Competiting Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

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

Thanks Jeff and Mary for your motions.

They have been added to the agenda, Mary's motion first, and Jeff's motion in 
case Mary's does not pass. Please let me know if that was not the intent.

Stéphane



Le 9 nov. 2011 à 18:33, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> 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  / 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.
>