RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Maria,

 

One practical question, I believe you are not going to be at the meeting in
Beijing.

 

So, is it your intention that someone else leads the making of the motion
and the initial discussion or will you do so remotely?

 

Jonathan

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: 02 April 2013 23:30
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting

 

Dear Jonathan and fellow Council members,

I would like to request the addition of an item to the draft Beijing GNSO
Council meeting agenda, circulated earlier today, by proposing a motion for
discussion and adoption, copied below. 


"The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent
adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House
"Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed genesis and the strong
opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion
of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the
new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had
appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the
GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent substantive
policy-making rather than purely technical or operational implementation,
represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN
staff. 

The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the
established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a
top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's
bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.

As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and
unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive
justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of
this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman
Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder
model.

The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed
course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the
extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50
additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been
approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of
their implications." 

Best regards,

Maria