[council] Reconfiguring the URS?

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>