Thanks very much Alan for this. But this propensity to sideline MSM principles on the grounds of urgent implementation, especially on matters so far reaching, is disturbing. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
The following message is from the GNSO Council list and has generated a lot of reaction.
To summarize: Apparently the potential providers of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) have said that the described process cannot be done for the expected price (or even a fair amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there was not at least a heads-up that this rework needed to be redone, and that the only formal indication of it was in a minor item in the proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least.
For a more complete summary of my views on this, see (including one from me - see my comment to the GNSO Council list at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html.
Alan
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
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> 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@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)