Re: [bc-gnso] URS Review

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jon.   To give this some context, on today's call we talked about the 
motion (and substitute) on doing a UDRP Issues report

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.

Proposed friendly amendment (by David Taylor): RESOLVED further, the GNSO 
Council requests 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 prepared with staff commencing 
the drafting of this report eighteen (18) months after the publication of at 
least a 100 UDRP or URS that cover at least 10 new gTLDs.  Such report should 
be delivered to the GNSO Council within four (4) months of that trigger date.

The alternate motion requires a threshold of UDRP/URS case experience AND an 
18-month experience period.  Mikey and I asked whether the experience period 
could be shortened since it would begin only after the case threshold has been 
met.

Jon noted that a 12 month URS experience period was supported by the Special 
Trademark working group.


From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:03:56 -0500
To: "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [bc-gnso] URS Review

As discussed on the call, STI Recommendation 10.1 references unanimous consent 
for a mandatory URS review one year after it begins to operate.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm



Thanks.

jon