[council] Re: Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG

[Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear colleagues,


On behalf of the IPC, I volunteer to second the motion put forward by Phil.


Best wishes,


Heather


________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:32
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mary Wong (mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: [council] Updated Motion and Charter for RPM Review WG


Councilors:



On behalf of the subgroup which met twice this past week to discuss the best 
way to conduct a PDP on the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, I am pleased to 
forward for your consideration updated versions of the Motion and draft Charter 
for same. I am hereby proposing them in order to meet the deadline for items to 
be considered by the Council in Marrakech.



The Motion has been altered since the version that we adopted at the last 
Council meeting to include a reference to our subgroup.



The Charter has been altered to include a new clause in the second sentence of 
the first paragraph under "Background", as follows (new language in Bold):



As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms 
(RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights 
holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included 
certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of 
domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); the Trademark 
Clearinghouse (TMCH) and the associated availability through the TMCH of 
Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the 
Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs).



That language was offered by Amr and was deemed non-controversial by members of 
the subgroup.



The subgroup was unable to reach consensus to include draft Charter language 
proposed by Amr to subsection (a) of the Mission and Scope portion of the 
Charter. That language would have delegated to the WG the decision as to 
whether the two-phased approach should start first with review of new gTLD RPMs 
or of the UDRP. However, there was general consensus among subgroup members 
that, as the rationale for such delegation of decision-making was that some 
public comments had taken positions not included within the three staff options 
contained in the Preliminary Issues Report, the WG should, if Council does not 
decide scope and priorities, be free to consider any public comment suggestions 
beyond the staff options - which would include the comments of WIPO and INTA 
that the UDRP should not undergo any review at all.



It will be up to Amr and other supporters of altering the Charter to decide 
whether they wish to offer such a decisional delegation amendment to the draft 
Charter when we meet in Marrakech.



Let me know if any of you have questions.



Safe travel to Marrakech, and best regards,

Philip





Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



Twitter: @VlawDC



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey