Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team
After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team. To make it easy to see the changes I made, I attached a redline version. I also copied the amended motion below. Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then someone to second it. Because the motion has not been formally made, there does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are friendly. Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process. Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion. Chuck Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter ( http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-e n.pdf ) to the GNSO 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 created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) 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 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 is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its accompanying memoranda; 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-e n.pdf) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a forty-five (45) day public comment period 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 (2) has been posted on the Wiki in front of the original motion (2a) . https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?17_december_motions Thank you. Glen From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: mercredi 16 décembre 2009 23:11 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team Importance: High After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team. To make it easy to see the changes I made, I attached a redline version. I also copied the amended motion below. Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then someone to second it. Because the motion has not been formally made, there does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are friendly. Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process. Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion. Chuck Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pd... ) to the GNSO 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 created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) 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 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 is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its accompanying memoranda; 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.pd...) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a forty-five (45) day public comment period 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.
Chuck, I will make this motion and request Council exception so that it can be considered in today's meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 16 déc. 2009 à 23:11, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team. To make it easy to see the changes I made, I attached a redline version. I also copied the amended motion below.
Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then someone to second it. Because the motion has not been formally made, there does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are friendly. Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process.
Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion.
Chuck
Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pd... ) to the GNSO 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 created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook;
Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) 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 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 is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its accompanying memoranda;
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.pd...) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a forty-five (45) day public comment period 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.
<Motion regarding STI Review Team Recommendations - amended 16 Dec 09.doc>
Chuck, I second this motion. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:34 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Amended Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team Importance: High Chuck, I will make this motion and request Council exception so that it can be considered in today's meeting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 16 déc. 2009 à 23:11, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : After discussion with several people, in anticipation of possible action in our Council meeting tomorrow, I made some changes to the previously distributed and posted draft motion regarding the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team. To make it easy to see the changes I made, I attached a redline version. I also copied the amended motion below. Note that we still need someone to make this motion or another one and then someone to second it. Because the motion has not been formally made, there does not appear to be a need to ask whether my proposed amendments are friendly. Clearly, anyone who makes a motion may rewrite it however they like. The purpose of providing a draft motion was to facilitate the process. Glen - please post the amended motion in front of the original motion. Chuck Motion to Approve the Alternative Proposal recommended by the Special Trademark Issues Review Team (Amended 16 Dec 09) Whereas, on 12 October 2009, the ICANN Board sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pd... ) to the GNSO 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 created the Special Trademarks Issues (STI) review team to analyze the specific rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed for inclusion into the Draft Applicant Guidebook; Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the STI Review Team delivered its Report (link: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/) 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 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 is a more effective and implementable solution than the Staff proposal described in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 3 and its accompanying memoranda; 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.pd...) and acknowledges that the STI report will be posted as soon as possible for a forty-five (45) day public comment period 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. <Motion regarding STI Review Team Recommendations - amended 16 Dec 09.doc>
participants (4)
-
Glen de Saint Géry -
Gomes, Chuck -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
Stéphane Van Gelder