Hi, we should make sure NO IRT model again. But it does seem ICANN is poorly prepared for implementation of its own complicated trademark measures. No trademark clearinghouse provider has been announced yet, although clearinghouse services are supposed to be in place even before operation of URS (for pre-registration trademark protection). It seems TMCH is completely internal-decided. Hong On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Hong, you are correct that it is not knew. But the fact that ICANN had decided that action needed to be taken, the form that this action is taking is, and the lack of involvement of the GNSO which created the original plan (based on some VERY difficult negotiations between the various stakeholders) is new.
You might remember that following the lack of acceptance of the URS proposed by the IRT, ICANN staff developed their own proposal (presumably based on the IRT model factoring in community input). That model was pretty well universally condemned. This sounds disturbingly like another go-around of that methodology.
Alan
At 06/05/2012 09:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
Alan, the issue not new. WIPO, which tried 80% of UDRP cases, had openly expressed that it could not handle URS cases at the proposed price before and after FAG release. URS proceeding design (with appeal and retrial) is several times more complicated with UDRP but the price is around 1/3 of it.
Given the situation of WIPO, the other three UDRP providers, which are more "local" and "small", would not be able to handle URS as well.
Hong
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 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...)
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China