[council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

Thu Sep 20 17:19:57 UTC 2012

Jeff,

Yes. We have written such a document (an RFI for provision of URS services)
and will publish it to solicit additional input. I am concerned that
entities who cannot meet the fee requirements will not respond. So we will
want to be careful that the responses inform discussions and do not serve to
cut off discussion on improvements.

We are reviewing a final draft now and, pending some reviiews, expect to
have it up in a few days.

Kurt

From:  <Neuman>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at neustar.us>
To:  Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, Kurt
<kurt.pritz at icann.org>
Cc:  GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

Kurt,

There was a discussion yesterday amongst some members of the community at an
even hosted by MelbourneIT where I raised a question which I feel like I
should restate on the Council list.  A number of us would like to see an
RFI/RFP on the URS so that we can have empirical evidence that the process
as designed cannot be conducted for the prices that have been indicated
($300-$500).  It is our understanding that your conclusions are based on
some discussions with the National Arbitration Forum and with the World
Intellectual Property Organization. However, some believe that there may
indeed be providers out there that can meet the requirements at the desired
feed.  But we will never know that unless and until a proper competitive
process is held. 

I draw analogies to the EBERO process where prior to the RFI, the community
assumed that each applicant would have to secure a Letter of Credit for
hundreds of thousands of dollars if not well in excess of $1M.  After the
RFI process and ICANN saw the costs that would actually be charged by
potential back-up providers (through the competitive process), it was
realized that the fees would be substantially less.  I believe the same may
be the case here.  If not, then what have we lost?

So, rather than trying to come up with new solutions on re-designing the
process that took years to come up with in the first place, can we place
some focus on getting the right providers at the right price?

Best regards,

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 Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:08 AM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] 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.

Best,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France

----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director

NetNames

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.

Regards,

Kurt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120920/99cbf46c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120920/99cbf46c/smime.p7s>