thank you. a. On 27 Oct 2009, at 12:04, Tim Ruiz wrote:

Avri,

Adrian made the motion, and I second it.

Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Date: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:23 pm To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>

Him,

I have aded this to the list of motions to be voted for the meeting.

are there names for motion and second?

thanks a.

On 25 Oct 2009, at 09:40, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

...

All,

During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team should be developed to review the issues and positions of members within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter.

Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on this motion on Wednesday’s GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines, that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday).

Glen – could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks!

Thanks.

Adrian

----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009 <<Letter from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council>>.

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSO’s view by December 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are consistent with the GNSO’s proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO’s stated principles and objectives;

WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board:

1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) representatives each, and At-Large with two (2) representatives and one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees(1);

2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver their initial position statements on November 4, and with final position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009;

3. Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; and

The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas where consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be determined. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO on or before the GNSO council’s meeting in late November, 2009.