[council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

Jonathan Robinson jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
Mon Oct 1 15:18:48 UTC 2012

Thank-you both Stéphane & John.


That’s helpful.



From: john at crediblecontext.com [mailto:john at crediblecontext.com] 
Sent: 01 October 2012 16:14
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion



I am in agreement with you.

It is neither realistic nor necessary for there to be a Council statement as long as we "work with our respective groups."


John Berard


Credible Context

58 West Portal Avenue, #291

San Francisco, CA 94127

m: 415.845.4388

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Date: Mon, October 01, 2012 8:04 am
To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>



FYI I have not engaged with Olof directly to ascertain what has led him to believe that the Council could put together a statement in this short space of time, on something that has taken months of previous GNSO work to put together.So I do not know if it is realistic to expect the Council to submit statements.


We have, over the past weeks, seen some pointed questions for Staff from Councillors on the latest implementation plans for the URS. Kurt has given some responses and I understand that the Toronto session Olof refers to is also part of Staff's work to get a complete picture of the situation and ensure a proper way forward is found.


This is one of the outcomes we had in mind when URS was put on our weekend agenda, and Wolf and Glen are working with Kurt to organize that session. I think Kurt's proposed approach to have the output of the Toronto meetings inform further GNSO discussions is useful, and would encourage us all to work with our respective groups to ensure that the Council does feed those discussions.








Le 1 oct. 2012 à 16:47, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

Thanks Stéphane,


I can confirm that the Registries SG has now received a related request from ICANN (Olof Nordling) looking for input and agenda items.


In our case, we (the GNSO) are being asked for a presentation or statement on the way forward for URS work. 

It seems that Olof is looking for something at the Monday meeting.


As far as I can see this topic (URS) only comes up on the weekend as part of our composite new gTLD session with the Kurt on Sunday morning.


So, we may need to schedule some dedicated time to deal with this or set Olof’s expectations that a statement is unlikely.


I’d be interested to hear from others as to whether or not it’s realistic to provide GNSO Council agreed input at the Monday meeting?




From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 29 September 2012 13:14
To: council at gnso.icann.org List
Subject: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion


Councillors, FYI.


Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France

Registry Relations and Strategy Director


T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61


Début du message réexpédié :

De : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org>

Objet : RE: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

Date : 28 septembre 2012 18:08:48 HAEC

À : 'Stéphane Van Gelder' (stephane.vangelder at indom.com) <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>

Cc : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz at icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>

Dear Stéphane,

Kurt forwarded me your kind reply to his mail below, and I would like to follow-up with some updates and a specific question. As you may have noted, the first upcoming sessions on URS are a webinar on 3 October (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-24sep12-en.htm ) and a session in Toronto on 18 October (see http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34325), where we will further discuss the solution suggestions brought up by the community in Prague and pursue the objectives stated in Kurt’s mail.  The ambition is to find an agreed way to analyze each suggestion in detail and reach balanced conclusions, for example by establishing a suitably balanced drafting team for that purpose.


Now to my question, as you mention that the Council may follow-up on Kurt’s message in a near future: Could we count on a presentation or statement at the URS session in Toronto to provide GNSO Council guidance on the best way forward for the continued URS work?


I hope this is possible and look forward to your response.


On another note: I also intend to contact the GNSO SGs/Constituencies individually as their contributions to the discussions in substance are essential. In addition, your help in spreading the word to them would be much appreciated. Proposals for the Toronto session as to speakers and topics are warmly welcome, as well as written input.


Very best regards





From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
To: Kurt <kurt.pritz at icann.org>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion


Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information.


The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future.




Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France

Registry Relations and Strategy Director


T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61


Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit :

Hi Stephane:


I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those models for possible implementation.We want to have one meeting in about two weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled. The first meeting will be announced shortly.


I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the the URS was designed and also seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO.


I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI.


I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions.










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20121001/a75120c2/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list