<html>
<body>
The IRT was a construct of the IPC (according to its report). Not sure,
given the objections of some groups, that you want to make it a child of
the full GNSO. Alan<br><br>
At 04/05/2012 11:08 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Saying there should have been a
more "front and center" announcement is very different from
saying something was intentionally hidden. That is my point.<br><br>
Thomas has cleared up this point now and explained that's not what he
meant so let's now all concentrate on a letter, if that's what we want to
do.<br><br>
I can suggest some base wording such as:<br><br>
<font color="#0049FF">Dear Steve,<br><br>
ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that there is a plan to
reconfigure the URS (provide excerpt from budget document).<br><br>
As you know, the URS was part of the GNSO's subsequent work on its
original new gTLD PDP, carried out through a couple of GNSO groups, the
IRT initially, and then the STI.<br><br>
As such, we on the GNSO Council are surprised that plans to reconfigure
the URS were not shared with us prior to being included in the budget
document. Further, we strongly recommend that the GNSO be included in the
work that is to be carried out on the URS as described in the draft
budget document.<br><br>
Yours....<br>
</font><br>
Thoughts?<br><br>
Stéphane<br><br>
<br><br>
Le 4 mai 2012 à 15:45, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Stephane,<br>
<br>
Without getting into the debate about whether staff intentional hid this
in the budget process, and I am not alleging that at all, I think we
could all agree that for a subject like this - the notion of changing the
URS - should have been a little bit more front and center and probably
best would have been better to disclose in a separate announcement as
opposed to within a note in the budget. I admit that I did not
catch it during my first reading. It took an article Phil Corwin
drafted for me to notice it.<br>
<br>
Lets discuss this during the GNSO Council call and I believe the letter
is a good idea.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br><br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</b><br><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stéphane Van
Gelder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 04, 2012 8:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> GNSO Council List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?<br>
<br>
Thanks all, great discussion.<br>
<br>
My personal view is aligned with those expressed here: it's a no-brainer
that the GNSO should be involved in any project undertaken to rework the
URS.<br>
<br>
Putting my Chair hat back on, should the Council express the desire to
make that point officially, I can suggest that I be tasked with writing
to the Board to request that we be involved.<br>
<br>
I will add this to the AoB on our agenda for next week as well.<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
P.S.: Thomas, I do not agree with your apparent allegations that there
was an attempt to "hide" this in the budget process. I think
that is an unfair characterization of Staff's work there. The budget
drafting process is extremely well-publicised by ICANN Staff, who even go
to the trouble of organization several webinar sessions to introduce the
draft. In that regard, the URS info is clearly in the draft and there for
all to see. So I would urge that we do not systematically adopt paranoid
reactions to what Staff does, as this does not help our aim of working
hand-in-hand with them.<br>
<br>
Le 3 mai 2012 à 21:45,
<<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu">Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu</a>>
<<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu">Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu</a>>
a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
My understanding is that ICANN has been told by likely providers that
$300-500 is an unrealistic number given the various steps and time lines
involved in the current URS process. To me, this means that arriving at a
realistic cost (whatever that turns out to be) will necessarily involve
examining and likely changing the URS itself.<br>
<br>
Since the URS was developed by the GNSO (through the STI refining the
original proposal from the IRT) it seems to me essential that the GNSO be
involved in any further change, refinement and discussion of it (whether
at summits or ICANN meetings or through WGs).<br>
<br>
Cheers<br><br>
Mary<br>
<br>
<b>Mary W S Wong<br>
</b><i>Professor of Law<br>
Chair, Graduate IP Programs<br>
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP<br>
</i>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail:
<a href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</a>Phone:
1-603-513-5143Webpage:
<a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</a>Selected writings available
on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
<a href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a>
<br>
>>><br>
<b>From:<br>
</b>Thomas Rickert
<<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>><br>
<b>To:<br>
</b>"Neuman, Jeff"
<<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>
><br>
<b>CC:<br>
</b>"<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">
council@gnso.icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
<b>Date:<br>
</b>5/3/2012 3:31 PM<br>
<b>Subject:<br>
</b>Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?<br>
Jeff, all,<br>
this should definitely be a matter for the GNSO to work on.<br>
I agree with you, Wendy and Alan.<br>
<br>
This should go on the agenda for our next meeting in my view. <br>
<br>
May I ask that the Council gets more background information on this? If I
remember correctly, the original figure of 300 USD per case was already
increased to 300-500 USD in one of the presentations in CR (I guess Kurt
presented it that way) and it would be interesting to see whether even
that figure was not sufficient to cover the costs.<br>
<br>
I would also like to ask why such important information is
"hidden" in the budget document. The information that the URS
cannot be implemented as planned is something that needs to be treated
carefully. The URS was presented as one approach to address the
shortcomings of the UDRP for the new namespaces. In my view any changes
to the URS as laid down in the AGB - if any - need to be carefully
balanced in order to avoid an uproar. <br>
<br>
I know that a lot of trademark owners have been more than hesitant to
provide ICANN with sensitive information during their TLD applications.
The TAS glitch did not particularly help to build trust. <br>
Changes to the URS should therefore include the community to avoid
further erosion of confidence in ICANN.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Thomas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 03.05.2012 um 20:09 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:<br><br>
<br>
All,<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>
</i></b><br>
<i>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.<br>
</i><br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</b><br>
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166<br>
<b>Office: </b>+1.571.434.5772 <b>Mobile: </b>+1.202.549.5079
<b>Fax: </b>+1.703.738.7965 <b>/</b>
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>
<b>/</b>
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>