Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks all, great discussion.

My personal view is aligned with those expressed here: it's a no-brainer that 
the GNSO should be involved in any project undertaken to rework the URS.

Putting my Chair hat back on, should the Council express the desire to make 
that point officially, I can suggest that I be tasked with writing to the Board 
to request that we be involved.

I will add this to the AoB on our agenda for next week as well.

Stéphane

P.S.: Thomas, I do not agree with your apparent allegations that there was an 
attempt to "hide" this in the budget process. I think that is an unfair 
characterization of Staff's work there. The budget drafting process is 
extremely well-publicised by ICANN Staff, who even go to the trouble of 
organization several webinar sessions to introduce the draft. In that regard, 
the URS info is clearly in the draft and there for all to see. So I would urge 
that we do not systematically adopt paranoid reactions to what Staff does, as 
this does not help our aim of working hand-in-hand with them.

Le 3 mai 2012 à 21:45, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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).
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> 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 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 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
>