Messages related to URS and JAS from Kurt Pritz in preparation for GNSO Council meeting starting 2.5 hours from now: My translation/summaries: URS: Word "Summit" in budget was an ill-advised choice. Process will be bottom up as per the STI. JAS: ALAC and GNSO Council agreed that JAS group could continue to work on implementation. JAS group is doing that and had now made an explicit recommendation that a "Son of JAS" be involved in carrying out implementation. If the GNSO Council desires, that recommendation can go to the GNSO COuncil instead of being implemented immediately. Alan
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:18:07 -0700 Subject: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz
Dear All,
Please find below a message from Kurt Pritz in relation to agenda item 6 (JAS WG) and item 9.3 (URS) for today's GNSO Council meeting.
With best regards,
Marika
From: Kurt Pritz <<mailto:kurt@icann.org>kurt@icann.org> To: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: For the Council meeting
Council Members:
I am sorry that I could not join the Council meeting. Please accept the following brief report on issues that have raised by the Council leadership and through your email list. More information can be provided.
Sincerely,
Kurt
Uniform Rapid Suspension: There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit" Implementation work conducted on the URS to date indicates that the the implementation will not attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO staff, direct communication with the IPC, and examples understood from the ICM registry and Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary goal of the URS, additional work and study should be undertaken to determine if amendments to the program might attain the fee goal and retain the safeguards and other features of the program. This study must be undertaken by a community group. While the scope of the effort is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 budget.The line item in the budget is the placeholder for those resources while the best way to accomplish the work can be designed. Again, the work will be done through a bottom-up, community discussion similar to the the work done to create and review the URS in the first instance. The timing of the budgeting process required that we create the line item before planning for this work could be drafted and worked through the community.
Joint Applicant Support Working Group The GNSO Council approved an extension of the JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that have since been completed, and to request that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations. <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. We continue to review implementation details with the JAS either the entire JAS or a sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS members have recommended that the community play a role in in the planning for the recruitment, training and operation of the "SARP," the review panels that will evaluate financial assistance applications. This planning includes the idea that the SARP include a Community Member Representative or CMR. Additional information can be provided to the GNSO to augment information provided by the JAS. A report on the details can be made directly to the GNSO Council and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.