Tim,
A clarifying question: Is the reference to "any
insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process" intended to encompass
insufficiencies and inequalities from the perspective of all
stakeholders/segments of the ICANN community? If not, from whose
perspective are the "insufficiencies/inequalities" intended to be
identified?
Thanks.
K
A few of us have collaborated on the following motion in response
to the
RAP WG final report. Even though it is technically within the
timeline
we currently recognize, I personally do not expect it to be acted
on at
the meeting on the 13th but felt it at least warranted a second and
some
discussion:
----- Begin Motion -----
Whereas the
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its
report to the GNSO
Council on 29 May 2010
(see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
and
Whereas
the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and
decided to
form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed
approach with
regard to the recommendations contained in the
Registration Abuse Policies
Working Group Final Report, and
Whereas the Registration Abuse
Policies Implementation Drafting Team
submitted its proposed response to
the GNSO Council on 15 November
2010
(see
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf),
and
Whereas
the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its
Working Session
at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.
RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council
instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward
the two issues identified by the
RAP IDT as having low resource
requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2
and Fake Renewal Notices
recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for
resolution. ICANN
Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council
with its
feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in
a
timely manner.
RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an
Issues Report on the current
state of the UDRP. This effort should
consider:
-- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting
to date, and
any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the
process.
-- Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within
the existing
UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.
The
Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on
this
issue might be managed.
------ End Motion
------
Thanks,
Tim