Sorry to come at this so late in the game.  Do we want to say (in red):

“With respect to the remaining, fifth, recommendation from the Working Group, the GNSO Council has voted to refer the issue to Phase 2 of the GNSO PDP on Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs. As a result, the GNSO Council is not requesting any action from the Board on that recommendation at this time.”

I don’t think we want to take Phase 1 off its already-late timeline by introducing this question, which seems like a Phase 2 question in any event. 

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Taft /
 
Paul D. McGrady / Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
www.taftlaw.com / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com

Taft Bio

Taft vCard

Subscribe to our law updates

 

 

 

 

Dear all,

 

As noted below, staff has updated the Draft Recommendations Report to the Board on the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP recommendations – please see the attached markup for the two revisions that we made based on Marie’s comments.

 

The two revisions are:

• Updating Section 7 to add a reference to the GAC letter of 17 April 2019 and the Council’s decision; and
• Updating Section 10 to add a reference to the possible need to review or modify implementation work depending on the outcome of the RPM work on Recommendation 5.

 

Marie, FYI that we did not make any additional revisions for the following reasons:

• For Section 4, we read your comment as agreeing with the suggested text; and
• For Section 5, we advise including this suggestion either in a cover note (or separate letter), since the Recommendations Report concerns those recommendations approved for Board action. As such, Recommendation 5 (and any additional resources that may be required) is not part of the scope of this report.

 

We hope the revisions accurately reflect Marie’s suggestions.

 

Best regards,

Steve & Mary

 

Thanks!

Marie

 

 

Hello Marie and everyone – as we did not see any further discussion following your message, staff have not edited or amended the Recommendations Report that was circulated for Council review. If, however, there are no objections to your suggestions, we are very happy to make the suggested changes before the 16 May meeting.

 

Thanks and cheers

Steve & Mary

 

Sorry to come back to this, but may I please check – are paras 7 and 10 (& 5?) going ahead as originally drafted or are the below changes possible?

Thanks again,

Marie

 

 

Thanks, all.

I am consulting with the BC membership, but some initial thoughts:

 

·       4 - Agree that it makes sense to go to the same IRT as for the Red Cross.

·       5 - Although not for these Recs, notable that we will need legal expertise for Rec 5 in the new RPM group. Maybe worth a reference that we will need to budget for that?

·       7 - Think we should also mention the latest GAC letter [gnso.icann.org] (17^th April).

·       10 – Perhaps we should be explicit that the implementation may need to be revisited depending on the outcome of the work on Rec 5?

 

Best

Marie

 

 

Dear Councilors,

 

Please find attached for your review a draft Recommendations Report covering the four PDP recommendations on IGO-INGO Curative Rights that the Council approved at its meeting last month. As a reminder, under the ICANN Bylaws (Annex A, Section 8), the Council is required to submit a Recommendations Report to the Board (following Council approval of PDP recommendations and prior to any Board action).

 

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments on the document. As is customary, and subject to any contrary request by a Councilor, the staff expectation is that the report will be placed on the Council’s consent agenda for the 16 May meeting.  

 

Thanks and cheers

Steve & Mary