Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd put the last sentence first. It's most important that we say the
GNSO should lead on any reconfiguration of URS, if any is necessary
given a full review of the options.

Even with Kurt's clarification, I think we should send a message
indicating Council's view that this is a matter of GNSO policy.

--Wendy

On 05/04/2012 11:08 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Saying there should have been a more "front and center" announcement is very 
> different from saying something was intentionally hidden. That is my point.
> 
> Thomas has cleared up this point now and explained that's not what he meant 
> so let's now all concentrate on a letter, if that's what we want to do.
> 
> I can suggest some base wording such as:
> 
> Dear Steve,
> 
> ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that there is a plan to reconfigure 
> the URS (provide excerpt from budget document).
> 
> As you know, the URS was part of the GNSO's subsequent work on its original 
> new gTLD PDP, carried out through a couple of GNSO groups, the IRT initially, 
> and then the STI.
> 
> As such, we on the GNSO Council are surprised that plans to reconfigure the 
> URS were not shared with us prior to being included in the budget document. 
> Further, we strongly recommend that the GNSO be included in the work that is 
> to be carried out on the URS as described in the draft budget document.
> 
> Yours....
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 4 mai 2012 à 15:45, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> 
>> Stephane,
>>  
>> Without getting into the debate about whether staff intentional hid this in 
>> the budget process, and I am not alleging that at all, I think we could all 
>> agree that for a subject like this - the notion of changing the URS - should 
>> have been a little bit more front and center and probably best would have 
>> been better to disclose in a separate announcement as opposed to within a 
>> note in the budget.  I admit that I did not catch it during my first 
>> reading.  It took an article Phil Corwin drafted for me to notice it.
>>  
>> Lets discuss this during the GNSO Council call and I believe the letter is a 
>> good idea.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>
>>  
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: GNSO Council List
>> Subject: Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
>>  
>> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/