[PC-NCSG] UDRP motion

[William Drake]

Good morning,

Moving this to the PC list.  We should discuss motions etc there, archived & more inclusive etc.

I believe Wendy said on Skype that Rgy has vote counted, I presume for Jeff's alternate.  Don't know if that means they intend to vote against Mary's, have not had my ear to the ground on this one and wasn't in Dakar.  Some background from folks who were would help.  In submitting his, Jeff said on Council that it was in line with a discussion in " Dakar about delaying a PDP on the UDRP for 18 months after the first delegation, but still addressing the transfer issue now."  Why do they want to delay, and why just this one issue?

I return to the question posed last night, if Mary's goes down and we are unable to amend, would we accept Jeff's as is?  Or only if we can amend, i.e. is it better to go down in flames on principle, as with the RAA transparency votes in the past? 

On Joy's comments,

On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> JL: this reads like a ?let?s start with clause? because it limits the scope to one issue (domain name locking) so that it can be taken up in the wider consideration of the UDRP (assuming the latter happens). If the GNSO did agree to a wider review ? would this be a good issue to start with?

If we settle for just locking, might this take the steam out of any effort to get a broader review?  Or are we confident the latter would follow?
>  
> 
> RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 
> JL: The more I looked at this the more I wasn?t sure what this meant?.For example which rights? And which rights protection mechanisms? Would it include rights to free speech, freedom of association, and equality ? the criminal prosecution in Lebanon of the registrants of www.gaylebanon.org for example. Or is it only some rights eg intellectual property rights?
> 

I have to assume it's just IPR.  Human rights?  Joy this is a term and concern that I've never heard raised in Council.

> Bill raised a very important point I think: Jeff?s motion recommends the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a WG on recommendation 7 of the IRTP Part B WG?.
> Mary on the other hand said that a PDP and a WG should be specifically created for the UDRP.
>  
> We need to push for Mary?s suggestion if her motion fails. The UDRP should not be a subsequent issue for a WG ? a WG should be dedicated to this issue. now, for any other substantive issues, I would also suggest we task the WG to focus first on procedural issues and then on substantive. We will definitely get more support on if we follow this route?.
>  
> JL: Agreed: If Mary?s resolution fails, I would suggest the following friendly amendment that would establish the review, start with the WG looking at Rec #7, and call for a report on the overall UDRP review 18 months after the launch of the new gTLDs:
> 
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on the UDRP,
> 
> RESOLVED that the Working Group commence with consideration of recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.
> 
> RESOLVED, further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the UDRP Review be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD.
> 

So then we're basically offering Mary's (presumably defeated) motion as an amendment to Jeff's that was designed as an alternative.  Seems unlikely to carry the day, no?

I will be offline much of the day and in the hours prior to the call, thing at the US mission here, so it would help me a lot if you lawyer types who follow UDRP more closely could pow wow and provide some guidance on how to proceed once the call starts!

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111117/449ed7d7/attachment.html>