Hi Kristina, The language comes directly from the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf).  Of course, the DT's recommendations ultimately came from pages 26-33 of the RAP WG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf).  So the motion just uses their words. Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 12:28 pm To: 'Tim Ruiz' <tim@godaddy.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>

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  

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:03 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion to consider regarding RAP WG final report

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