Re: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt,
in addition to my support for Jeff's statement, let me repeat what I already 
asked in Prague: It is hard to understand why the cost target can (allegedly) 
not be met unless we understand on which basis the two potential contractors 
gave their opinion, which led ICANN to start this process. Is there any service 
/ process description (beyond what's in the AGB) that was made available to 
these two organizations? If so, please make such information available to us. 
At least I would like to understand what drives the cost and whether processes 
can be tweaked to reduce costs.

Thanks,
Thomas 

Am 19.09.2012 um 14:38 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> Kurt,
> 
> There was a discussion yesterday amongst some members of the community at an 
> even hosted by MelbourneIT where I raised a question which I feel like I 
> should restate on the Council list.  A number of us would like to see an 
> RFI/RFP on the URS so that we can have empirical evidence that the process as 
> designed cannot be conducted for the prices that have been indicated 
> ($300-$500).  It is our understanding that your conclusions are based on some 
> discussions with the National Arbitration Forum and with the World 
> Intellectual Property Organization. However, some believe that there may 
> indeed be providers out there that can meet the requirements at the desired 
> feed.  But we will never know that unless and until a proper competitive 
> process is held.
>  
> I draw analogies to the EBERO process where prior to the RFI, the community 
> assumed that each applicant would have to secure a Letter of Credit for 
> hundreds of thousands of dollars if not well in excess of $1M.  After the RFI 
> process and ICANN saw the costs that would actually be charged by potential 
> back-up providers (through the competitive process), it was realized that the 
> fees would be substantially less.  I believe the same may be the case here.  
> If not, then what have we lost?
>  
> So, rather than trying to come up with new solutions on re-designing the 
> process that took years to come up with in the first place, can we place some 
> focus on getting the right providers at the right price?
>  
> 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: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:08 AM
> To: Kurt Pritz
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
>  
> Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information.
>  
> The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM NetNames France
> ----------------
> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
> NetNames
> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
> F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
> 
>  
> Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi Stephane:
>  
> I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on 
> Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the 
> input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that 
> URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In 
> Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential 
> solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those 
> models for possible implementation.We want to have one meeting in about two 
> weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some 
> face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is 
> scheduled. The first meeting will be announced shortly.
>  
> I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do 
> not match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its 
> work. We recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the 
> meetings we are having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO 
> leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having 
> the twin goals of developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and 
> ensuring that all those interested can participate in the discussion, we can 
> work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to 
> meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the the URS was designed and 
> also seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the 
> current model by the IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform 
> GNSO discussion or we can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO.
>  
> I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI.
>  
> I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Kurt
>  
>