[ispcp] FW: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI

 

The motion to support a F2F PDP meeting was not voted. There was an
opposition from the BC. Discussions centered around lack of budget prevision
and not enough funds to support all the requirements that could possibly be
made after such a precedent.

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner



 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: quinta-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2009 20:01
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolutions 17 December 2009

 

Dear All,

 

Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed
unanimously during the Council meeting on Thursday, 17 December 2009.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you

Kind regards,

 

Glen

 

1. Motion To Approve Tool Kit of Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups (amended 4 Dec 09)

 

Motion by: Chuck Gomes

Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Olga Cavalli

 

Whereas the Board Governance Committee Report on GNSO Improvements (BGC
Report) tasked ICANN staff with developing, within six months, in
consultation with the GNSO Council, a ?tool kit? of basic services that
would be made available to all constituencies. (See Report of the Board
Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements, 3
February 2008 located at
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-0
3feb08.pdf>, p. 46.);

 

Whereas the ICANN Board approved the BGC GNSO Improvement Recommendations on
26 June 2008
(<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>);

 

Whereas in January 2009 the GNSO Council formed the Operations Steering
Committee (OSC) to develop recommendations to implement operational changes
contained in the BGC Report;

 

Whereas the OSC established three Work Teams, including the GNSO Stakeholder
Group and Constituency Operations Work Team, to take on the work of each of
the three operational areas addressed in the BGC Report recommendations;

 

Whereas the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Operations Work Team
developed and approved Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups on 25 October 2009 and sent them to
the OSC for review;

 

Whereas the OSC accepted the Work Team's recommendations;

 

Whereas on 5 Nov 09 the document was distributed to the Council list and
Councilors were asked to forward the recommendations to their respective
groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action
in our December meeting;

 

Whereas the implementation of the toolkit has process and budgetary
implications;

 

RESOLVED, the Council approves the recommendations
(<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05
nov09-en.pdf>) and directs Staff to: 1) share the recommendations with the
Board; 2) post the document on the GNSO web page at
<http://gnso.icann.org/>; 3) estimate the cost of the services; 4) estimate
what funds might be available; 5) prioritize the list of services in
cooperation with the Council; 6) develop specifications for providing the
services, including requirements for their use and procedures for requesting
them; and 7) notify applicable GNSO organizations of the services,
specifications and procedures for requesting them.


The motion passed unanimously  by voice vote.

 

2 Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special
Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) and amended by Kristina
Rosette

 

Motion made by: Stéphane van Gelder

Seconded by: Debra Hughes

 

Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter
(http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p

df ) to the GNSO Council requesting its review of the policy implications of
certain trademark protection mechanisms proposed for the New gTLD Program;

 

Whereas, in response to the Board's letter, on 28 October 2009 the GNSO
Council created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze
the staff implementation models of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform
Rapid Suspension System that were proposed for inclusion in the Draft
Application Guidebook;

 

Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf

to the GNSO Council describing an alternative proposal to address trademark
concerns in the New gTLD Program that was supported by a consensus of its
members;

 

Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the STI Report, and the minority reports
included therein, and desires to approve the alternative proposal
recommended by the STI review team;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort
shown by each member of the STI review team in developing the STI
alternative proposal on an expedited basis;

 

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the overall package of
recommendations contained in the STI Report, and resolves that the STI
proposal to create a Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension
procedure as described in the STI Report are more effective and
implementable solutions than the corresponding staff implementation models
that were described in memoranda accompanying the Draft Applicant Guidebook
Version 3;

 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to forward the
recommendations to the Board in response to its 12 October 2009 letter
(http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p

df) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible
for a public comment period that will end on 26 January 2010 to allow the
ICANN community to comment on the STI recommendations prior to finalization
of the model to be included in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

 

The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of all Council members
present.

Council members absent: 
Contracted Party House - Registrar Stakeholder Group: Adrian Kinderis
Non Contracted Party House - NCSG - Rosemary Sinclair, Mary Wong


3. Motion to delay decision regarding initiation of a Vertical Integration
PDP

Made by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by Bill Drake and Jaime Wagner

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council requested that Staff prepare an Issues Report on
Vertical Integration at its 24 September 2009 meeting;

WHEREAS, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf
has been delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 December 2009
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;p
age_name=11%20December%202009> ;

WHEREAS, in light of the approaching year-end holidays and the numerous
important issues pending before the GNSO Council, the Council desires to
have ample time to evaluate the recommendations contained in the Issues
Report;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the Council acknowledges receipt of the Issues Report, thanks
Staff for its efforts to produce the report, and agrees to delay
consideration of the decision on whether to launch a PDP on the topic of
vertical integration until January 2010.


The motion passed unanimously  by voice vote.

 

 

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org