ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?

Jeff, all,
this should definitely be a matter for the GNSO to work on.
I agree with you, Wendy and Alan.

This should go on the agenda for our next meeting in my view. 

May I ask that the Council gets more background information on this? If I 
remember correctly, the original figure of 300 USD per case was already 
increased to 300-500 USD in one of the presentations in CR (I guess Kurt 
presented it that way) and it would be interesting to see whether even that 
figure was not sufficient to cover the costs.

I would also like to ask why such important information is "hidden" in the 
budget document. The information that the URS cannot be implemented as planned 
is something that needs to be treated carefully. The URS was presented as one 
approach to address the shortcomings of the UDRP for the new namespaces. In my 
view any changes to the URS as laid down in the AGB - if any - need to be 
carefully balanced in order to avoid an uproar. 

I know that a lot of trademark owners have been more than hesitant to provide 
ICANN with sensitive information during their TLD applications. The TAS glitch 
did not particularly help to build trust. 
Changes to the URS should therefore include the community to avoid further 
erosion of confidence in ICANN.



Am 03.05.2012 um 20:09 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> All,
> 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) 
> 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.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz

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