Proposed Motion on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Final Report
Hi all, Attached is the proposed motion language for addressing the IGO-INGO CRP Final Report, which also includes rationale language in support of this course of action. The Council Leadership Team feels this is the best compromise solution to this issue. We will be happy to discuss further on our next call. In summary, we continue to recommend a vote to approve Recommendations 1-4 and to not accept Recommendation 5. We believe the best course of action is to refer Recommendation 5 to the RPM PDP WG for a re-chartered Phase 2, rather than initiating a new and separate EPDP. If Recommendations 1-4 are approved, then Recommendation 5 is to be revisited within existing Dispute Resolution Procedures, rather than creating a new one, so it appropriately belongs in the RPM PDP WG for Phase 2 work on UDRP. Please socialize this with your respective SGs and Cs so we can conduct a vote on April 18. I am available to discuss this with anyone who has questions. Thanks and regards, Keith
Dear Councilors, I second this motion put forward by Keith. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent At:2019 Apr. 9 (Tue.) 08:59 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject:[council] Proposed Motion on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Final Report Hi all, Attached is the proposed motion language for addressing the IGO-INGO CRP Final Report, which also includes rationale language in support of this course of action. The Council Leadership Team feels this is the best compromise solution to this issue. We will be happy to discuss further on our next call. In summary, we continue to recommend a vote to approve Recommendations 1-4 and to not accept Recommendation 5. We believe the best course of action is to refer Recommendation 5 to the RPM PDP WG for a re-chartered Phase 2, rather than initiating a new and separate EPDP. If Recommendations 1-4 are approved, then Recommendation 5 is to be revisited within existing Dispute Resolution Procedures, rather than creating a new one, so it appropriately belongs in the RPM PDP WG for Phase 2 work on UDRP. Please socialize this with your respective SGs and Cs so we can conduct a vote on April 18. I am available to discuss this with anyone who has questions. Thanks and regards, Keith
Hi Pam, We have noted your second on the GNSO Council wiki space: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+201... Best, Terri From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Pam Little Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 7:03 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-secs] [council] Proposed Motion on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Final Report Dear Councilors, I second this motion put forward by Keith. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Sent At:2019 Apr. 9 (Tue.) 08:59 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc:gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject:[council] Proposed Motion on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Final Report Hi all, Attached is the proposed motion language for addressing the IGO-INGO CRP Final Report, which also includes rationale language in support of this course of action. The Council Leadership Team feels this is the best compromise solution to this issue. We will be happy to discuss further on our next call. In summary, we continue to recommend a vote to approve Recommendations 1-4 and to not accept Recommendation 5. We believe the best course of action is to refer Recommendation 5 to the RPM PDP WG for a re-chartered Phase 2, rather than initiating a new and separate EPDP. If Recommendations 1-4 are approved, then Recommendation 5 is to be revisited within existing Dispute Resolution Procedures, rather than creating a new one, so it appropriately belongs in the RPM PDP WG for Phase 2 work on UDRP. Please socialize this with your respective SGs and Cs so we can conduct a vote on April 18. I am available to discuss this with anyone who has questions. Thanks and regards, Keith
participants (3)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Pam Little -
Terri Agnew