[council] Reconfiguring the URS?
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu May 10 18:14:25 UTC 2012
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
At 04/05/2012 11:08 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>Saying there should have been a more "front and
>center" announcement is very different from
>saying something was intentionally hidden. That is my point.
>
>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.
>
>I can suggest some base wording such as:
>
>Dear Steve,
>
>ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that
>there is a plan to reconfigure the URS (provide excerpt from budget document).
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Yours....
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Stéphane
>
>
>
>Le 4 mai 2012 à 15:45, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>
>>Stephane,
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Lets discuss this during the GNSO Council call
>>and I believe the letter is a good idea.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>
>>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>
>>
>>From:
>><mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:48 AM
>>To: GNSO Council List
>>Subject: Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
>>
>>Thanks all, great discussion.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>I will add this to the AoB on our agenda for next week as well.
>>
>>Stéphane
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Le 3 mai 2012 à 21:45,
>><<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
>><<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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).
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Mary
>>
>>Mary W S Wong
>>Professor of Law
>>Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo
>>White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail:
>><mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone:
>>1-603-513-5143Webpage:
>><http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected
>>writings available on the Social Science
>>Research Network (SSRN) at:
>><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>> >>>
>>From:
>>Thomas Rickert <<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>To:
>>"Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>>CC:
>>"<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org"
>><<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org>
>>Date:
>>5/3/2012 3:31 PM
>>Subject:
>>Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
>>Jeff, all,
>>this should definitely be a matter for the GNSO to work on.
>>I agree with you, Wendy and Alan.
>>
>>This should go on the agenda for our next meeting in my view.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>Changes to the URS should therefore include the
>>community to avoid further erosion of confidence in ICANN.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Am 03.05.2012 um 20:09 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
>>
>>
>>All,
>>Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but
>>buried in the new budget document
>>(<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)
>>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.
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
>>Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile:
>>+1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
>><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz
>>/ <http://www.neustar.biz/>www.neustar.biz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120510/4594f94a/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list