ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?

My understanding is that ICANN has been told by likely providers that
$300-500 is an unrealistic number given the various steps and time lines
involved in the current URS process. To me, this means that arriving at
a realistic cost (whatever that turns out to be) will necessarily
involve examining and likely changing the URS itself. 
Since the URS was developed by the GNSO (through the STI refining the
original proposal from the IRT) it seems to me essential that the GNSO
be involved in any further change, refinement and discussion of it
(whether at summits or ICANN meetings or through WGs).

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC:"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/3/2012 3:31 PM
Subject: 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

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:


Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget
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

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

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 >>>