Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
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.
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.
> Le 4 mai 2012 à 15:45, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>> 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.
>> 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).
>> 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
>> 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
>> Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 5/3/2012 3:31 PM
>> 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:
>> 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 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