[council] FW: URS update

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Tue Nov 6 12:15:15 UTC 2012

Forwarded on behalf of Olof Nordling
Dear Councillors,
Thank you first of all for a constructive discussion in Toronto on the next
steps in URS implementation and for considering setting up a drafting team
to address practicalities in that regard. The URS session in Toronto
happened to partly overlap with your GNSO wrap-up session, making it
impossible for you to attend the entire URS session, but the recording and
presentations are available at http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34325  for
your information.
As you may be aware, the session turned out quite interesting overall, with
a late addition of a verbal presentation from Intersponsive stating that
they would be able to act as URS provider for the target fee, albeit with
some minor adjustments of the process as drafted. On that note, also NAF
responded that they could meet the target fee, provided reasonable
adjustments could be done regarding a) the number of domain names to be
handled under one complaint (for the same fee) and b) the language
requirements (now open-ended) for the notifications to registrants. You may
also find parts of the NAF presentation particularly interesting as it
raises some very pointed questions ­ here is a direct link to that
Since Toronto, we held a Q&A conference call on 23 October with prospective
respondents to the URS RFI. This was attended by five prospective
respondents and from staff side we made it clear that crucial aspects were
to state whether the respondent could stay within the target fee for URS
complaints and to clearly indicate any deviations from the URS text deemed
necessary to achieve that. The questions and answers from that call are now
available here http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rfi-faqs , in
addition to a web page for recent URS developments at
The deadline for responses to the URS RFI is 20 November and it seems that
we can indeed hope for interesting responses. I consider it very likely,
though, that the responses will call for some adjustments of the URS text as
currently drafted (inter alia on items a) and b) mentioned above). This
raises the question to what extent proposed adjustments would constitute
policy changes or merely interpretations/transformations to practical URS
rules. As you know, I have pleaded for a drafting team set up by the GNSO to
address such adjustments. I am at your disposal for an early start right now
of such work regarding known proposed adjustments like the two mentioned
above, if you so wish, or alternatively when we have the responses to the
RFI around 20 November.
I look forward to your comments and any questions you may have ­ and to
working together on this in the near future.
Very best regards
Olof Nordling

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20121106/1c70f5c0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5045 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20121106/1c70f5c0/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list