[council] URS follow-up

Neuman, Jeff Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Thu Oct 25 20:11:57 UTC 2012


I am not sure why we are giving this request any credibility.  Sorry for my bluntness, but no one answered my questions during the GNSO session or afterwards.  We seem to be conceding to ICANN that a team is necessary to revise URS policy even before seeing any of the results of the RFI which we now know there is at least one bidder that will propose doing the URS in accordance with the current policies laid out in the Guidebook for the price expected.

To concede now that policy work needs to be done is conceding that the ICANN is in fact held hostage by the current vendors providing existing UDRP services.  If we do indeed need to develop new policies around the URS (which at this point in time, there is no evidence that this needs to be done), I think we should address it then.  But aren't we putting the cart before the horse?

All of those caveats aside, if we are forced to set up a group, you can count on my participation.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:17 PM
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: 'Petter Rindforth'; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] URS follow-up

I would like to  join this, too!


Am 22.10.2012 um 22:35 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>:

Many thanks Peter.

Good to have you on board for this and other items.

Best wishes,


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth
Sent: 22 October 2012 00:38
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: Re: [council] FW: URS follow-up

Dear Jonathan and All new Colleagues,

Just to express my interest in participate in the further work with URS (as it seems we now have to).

I have experience as an .xxx Arbitrator and also created the Swedish ADR Accelerated Proceeding, so I hope I can therewith add some ideas  - and questions  - in order to have a fast as possible final solution regarding the URS.



Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB

Stureplan 4c, 4tr

114 35 Stockholm


Fax: +46(0)8-4631010

Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360

E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>



This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.

Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

Thank you
On 21 okt 2012 23:44 "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com><mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:

Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues.


From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org]
Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33
To: jonathan.robinson at iprota.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson at iprota.com>
Cc: Kurt Pritz
Subject: URS follow-up

Dear Jonathan,
Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated.

The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as  potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda - a presentation from a "new entrant", Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint.

I realize that you and other Council members couldn't attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard).

I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future.

Very best regards

Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20121025/d7bb5dbb/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list