<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
I would prefer
Dear Steve,
ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that
there is a plan to reconfigure the URS (provide excerpt from budget document).
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.
We strongly recommend that the work to be carried
out on the URS, as described in the draft budget document, be led by GNSO.
As you know, the URS was the result of work done
by the STI, a GNSO group set-up at the request of
the Board to augment the work of the original GNSO new gTLD PDP.
Yours....
At 10/05/2012 02:50 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Thanks Wendy and Alan.
So that would read something like this, right?
Dear Steve,
ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that
there is a plan to reconfigure the URS (provide excerpt from budget document).
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.
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.
As you know, the URS was the result of work done
by the IRT and the STI, two GNSO groups set-up
as part of the GNSO's follow-up work on its original new gTLD PDP.
Yours....
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT
Le 10 mai 2012 à 20:14, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
The IRT was a construct of the IPC (according
to its report). Not sure, given the objections
of some groups, that you want to make it a child of the full GNSO. Alan
At 04/05/2012 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:
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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,
<<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<<mailto: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 LAWTwo
White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail:
<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone:
1-603-513-5143Webpage:
<http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected
writings available on the Social Science
Research Network (SSRN) at:
<http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:
Thomas Rickert <<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx >
CC:
"<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<<mailto: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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|