ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:58:38 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EC6DEA276@STNTEXCH01.cis.ne ustar.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EC6DEA276@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The current URS was developed by a GNSO STI "Review Team" at the explicit request of the Board (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm) has a quick summary of the process). It was tweaked in a number of ways by Staff during implementation, and once unilaterally by the Board (presumably in response to pressure from one group).

It does not sound as if the current planned revision would be considered a "tweak". As such, I don't see how the GNSO could be excluded from the process (and being lumped into "and community members".

The satisfactory outcome of the STI group was not pre-destined. Given the strongly differing views of those going into the process, the outcome was remarkable and at least partially attributable to the good will of those involved and their willingness to take a fresh look at the issues.

Given the nature of the problem, the history, and the tight timing there is a great potential to come out of the described consultative process with a plan that meets the desired price point but not the needs of the various groups. I appreciate that the timing might not allow for a traditional GNSO policy development process (just as the STI effort didn't), but the GNSO should ne be placed on the periphery of the discussions.

If special "summits" are deemed necessary due to timing constraints, the GNSO must be a prominent player (probably through a balanced group of participants as with the STI). As such, the GNSO team should be funded for this participation at the summits.


At 03/05/2012 02:09 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>