RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Updated letter to the GNSO Council

["Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear team, 

After reviewing the materials and MP3s from our prior calls as well as
others' comments on the issues, I'd like to propose the following
revisions to Annex I of the letter. 

1. Amend the Notes in section B.v. entitled "Cybersquatting -
Recommendation #1 as follows: 

"Notes: 1) it may be helpful to see the effect of RPMs in the new gTLDs
space, particularly the interplay between the UDRP and URS, prior to
engaging in any PDP process. 2) There may be a dependency with WHOIS
studies, which are presently in the midst of an RFP process and
implementation, and 3) in addition to the foregoing notes, several
members of this drafting team have also expressed reservations about
proceeding with a PDP process that may result in changes to the UDRP at
this time because of the significant resources presently being devoted
to the new gTLD process and the significant burdens already placed on
ICANN's present compliance staff." 

(Note, additionally the small roman numbers should be fixed so as to
start re-numbering after B.) 

2. Based upon the rankings submitted by 9/24 deadline, the average
sequence for the recommendations on Cybersquatting/UDRP was 6.44 and
average sequence of Uniformity of Contracts was 3.5. On 10/25, over one
month after the IDT members were required to submit their rankings of
the RAPWG's 16 recommendations, James Bladel submitted rankings for the
recommendations Cybersquatting/UDRP - assigning it a ranking of 5 - and
Uniformity of Contracts - assigning it a ranking of 15. James did not
rank the other 14 recommendations. James' rankings resulted in the
average sequences for the Cybersquatting/UDRP and Uniformity of
Contracts recommendations to be tied at 5.7. 

On the 10/25 call, both Lisa and Joi raised objections to the ranking of
the Cybersquatting /UDRP recommendation being kept at a 5* and expressed
that a middle ranking or, for Joi, even a lower than middle ranking
would be preferred. Mikey stated these objections would be noted, but
they do not appear in either the letter or the attached matrix. (*The
ranking was later changed to a 4 due to a tie in the average sequencing
and the level of consensus of the RAPWG on these items.)

With the above in mind, I propose the following footnotes be inserted in
the Notes sections of B.v. and B.vi., respectively:

a. Additional note to be included after existing text in Note section in
B.v. / Cybersquatting 

"Two members of the IDT objected to the ranking of this item being 4 and
expressed that a middle or even lower than middle ranking (e.g., in the
7 to 10 range) would be more appropriate."

b. Additional note to be included after existing text in Note section in
B.vi./ Uniformity of Contracts

"There was a wide dispersion in the IDT in terms of rankings for this
recommendation: Five members of the IDT assigned a rank of 1 or 2 to
this item, two members assigned this item rankings of 5 and 7, and the
three remaining members ranked this items as a 10, 14 and 15."

I look forward to our call tomorrow.

Thank you and best regards,
 
Lisa
 
Lisa W. Rosaya
Baker & McKenzie LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: +1 212 626 4557
Fax: +1 212 310 1659
lisa.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
www.bakermckenzie.com <http://www.bakermckenzie.com/> 
<mailto:lisa.w.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a
Swiss Verein

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:07 AM
To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Updated letter to the GNSO Council



Dear All,

Following the feedback from Greg and Berry, please find attached for
your review an updated version of the letter to the GNSO Council which
incorporates their suggestions.

With best regards,

Marika

Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue 
Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes 
of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code 
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related 
matter.

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has 
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and 
then immediately delete this message.  Please visit 
www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers  for other important information concerning 
this message.