<html>
<body>
The current URS was developed by a GNSO STI "Review Team" at
the explicit request of the Board
(<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm</a>
) has a quick summary of the process). It was tweaked in a number of ways
by Staff during implementation, and once unilaterally by the Board
(presumably in response to pressure from one group). <br><br>
It does not sound as if the current planned revision would be considered
a "tweak". As such, I don't see how the GNSO could be excluded
from the process (and being lumped into "and community
members".<br><br>
The satisfactory outcome of the STI group was not pre-destined. Given the
strongly differing views of those going into the process, the outcome was
remarkable and at least partially attributable to the good will of those
involved and their willingness to take a fresh look at the issues.
<br><br>
Given the nature of the problem, the history, and the tight timing there
is a great potential to come out of the described consultative process
with a plan that meets the desired price point but not the needs of the
various groups. I appreciate that the timing might not allow for a
traditional GNSO policy development process (just as the STI effort
didn't), but the GNSO should ne be placed on the periphery of the
discussions. <br><br>
If special "summits" are deemed necessary due to timing
constraints, the GNSO must be a prominent player (probably through a
balanced group of participants as with the STI). As such, the GNSO team
should be funded for this participation at the summits.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 03/05/2012 02:09 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget
document
(<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm</a>
) just put out for comment is a note on “reconfiguring” the URS.
Excerpt provided below. I guess they could not find any URS
providers that could do it for the costs that they had projected, so
ICANN is holding 2 summits to work on a new model. My question for
the Council, is whether this is really a policy issue that should be
referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to having ICANN on
its own resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the controversy
around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should
probably go back to the community in my opinion.<br>
<br>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
<b><i>Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – $175K <br>
</b>At present there is a significant gap between the features specified
for the URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap
we will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a
lower cost model (one session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13
plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize URS Model in
consultation with current UDRP providers and community members; and
conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. The goal is have
a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by June
2013.</i></blockquote></body>
</html>