Thanks, Alan, as commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto, we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it seems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting could be enabled under the name "implementation". What do they want to "draft" in the Drafting Team? Is the team cross-constituency or solely for GNSO? Normally implementation plan is completed by staff. Why is it referred back to GNSO? Hong On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Promising note regarding the URS.
Alan
From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100
All,
Please be aware of the following note from Olof Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues.
Jonathan
From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 To: jonathan.robinson@iprota.com Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: URS follow-up
Dear Jonathan, Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all Council members for the constructive discussions we had on URS matters on 18 October! The willingness to consider a drafting team to address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated.
The subsequent URS session the same day in Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential URS providers, we had the advantage of a very late addition to the agenda – a presentation from a “new entrant”, Intersponsive, intending to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the target fee, although with some adjustments of the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they would be able to stay within the target fee, provided reasonable limitations could be established to the current translation requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint.
I realize that you and other Council members couldn’t attend this session, as it partially overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but the recording is available at <http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. Furthermore, there are a number of relevant documents posted on our recently established URS web page at <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, with considerations, proposals, some costing aspects and, most importantly, questions needing to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard).
I believe these recent developments further clarifies the need for a drafting team to establish realistic implementation measures based on the URS text. I look forward to further contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future.
Very best regards Olof
_______________________________________________ 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