Dear colleagues, On behalf of the IPC, I volunteer to second the motion put forward by Phil. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:32 To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Mary Wong (mary.wong@icann.org) 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