May 2012 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Preparation for Prague Meeting
by Benedetta Rossi May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

Dear BC Members, In preparation for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague, can you please provide me with the following information: 1. Arrival/Departure dates 2. Hotel Name 3. Extra guests 4. Contact details whilst traveling Thank you ever so much, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1

Clarification
by Michael D. Palage May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012

Hello All, I am a little confused by the wording "[w]e believe that requiring all Registries to comply with Thick Whois." How does one "comply" with thick whois? Registries such as .NAME, .TEL and now .CAT "operate" their registry by collecting Thick whois data, but comply with national privacy laws in how they provide access to that data set. Having worked with a large number of new gTLD applicants with a variety of business models, I think the BC needs to be a little more careful in how we word our statements so they scale in a future world of thousands of new gTLDs. Therefore, I would recommend that we change the phrase "comply with" to "have direct access to." Best regards, Michael

2 2

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: .COM Renewal Comments
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012

Elisa, I'm supportive of these comments. Thank you, Martin Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: Elisa Cooper [Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com] Sent: 14/05/2012 16:17 GMT To: "'Bc GNSO list ' (bc-gnso(a)icann.org)" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: .COM Renewal Comments With minor updates highlighted in blue from Marilyn Cade: The BC supports VeriSign's continued operation of the .COM Registry. However, we strongly urge ICANN to take this opportunity to require the maintenance of Thick Whois by VeriSign for the .COM Registry. We believe that requiring all Registries to comply with Thick Whois is an important first step in improving Whois. The BC has previously stated the importance of timely, unrestricted, and public access to complete and accurate Whois information. While the BC recognizes that Thick Whois does not directly improve accuracy, it does contribute to addressing the need for timely, unrestricted and public access of Whois information. The BC expects that other ongoing ICANN projects will improve Whois accuracy and responses by privacy/proxy services to relay/reveal requests. In particular, we expect improvements to result from: - current negotiations on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - implementation of SAC 051 recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-e…) ; and - policy development indicated by results of five pending Whois studies (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies) Rapporteur for this Discussion Draft: Elisa Cooper Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH From: Elisa Cooper Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:23 PM To: 'Bc GNSO list ' (bc-gnso(a)icann.org) Subject: .COM Renewal Comments BC Members, Per the Member's Call last Friday, please find below brief comments regarding the renewal of the .COM contract: The BC supports VeriSign's continued operation of the .COM Registry. However, we strongly urge ICANN to take this opportunity to require the maintenance of Thick Whois by VeriSign for the .COM Registry. We believe that requiring all Registries to comply with Thick Whois is an important first step in improving Whois. The BC has previously stated the importance of timely, unrestricted, and public access to complete and accurate Whois information. While the BC recognizes that Thick Whois does not improve accuracy, it does address the requirements for timely, unrestricted and public access of Whois information. The BC expects that other ongoing ICANN projects will improve Whois accuracy and responses by privacy/proxy services to relay / reveal requests. In particular, we expect improvements to result from: - current negotiations on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - implementation of SAC 051 recommendations (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-e…>); and - policy development indicated by results of five pending Whois studies (link<%20http:/gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies%20>). Rapporteur for this Discussion Draft: Elisa Cooper These comments are due Thursday, May 17th. The comments are in line with our stated position, however, please let me know if you have any additions, or edits as soon as possible. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389 5779 PH ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Period of 10-20 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Benedetta Rossi May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding Public Comment Periods Approaching closing date. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10may12-en.htm Period of 10-20 May 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 10 May 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their *Comment or Reply Period Close* dates, *May 10-20 2012*. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment *Title* *Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time]* *Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time]* Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm> Extended to 15 April 2012 [23:59] Extended to 14 May 2012 [23:59] Fake Renewal Notices Report <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…> 20 April 2012 [23:59] 11 May 2012 [23:59] .com Registry Agreement Renewal <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm> 26 April 2012 [23:59] 17 May 2012 [23:59] .post Agreement Amendment <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/post-amendment-2012-09apr12-en.…> 9 May 2012 [23:59] 30 May 2012 [23:59] <http://gnso.icann.org>

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Updated GNSO Council Agenda 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Benedetta Rossi May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below the updated GNSO Council Agenda for the meeting taking place on 10 May 2012 Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Dear All, Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC.*(*Other times may be found at:** http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeti… <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeti…>) Three items have been added to _Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)_ 9.1 Discussion on recent Board announcement to alter ICANN meeting Friday schedule. 9.2 Discussion on ALAC proposal for ICANN Academy. 9.3 URS update in draft budget - should the Council write to the Board to request that it be involved? (intro from Staff). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen The agenda is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-10may12-en.htm the Wiki agenda (for the latest updates) is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin… The motion before Council is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf>** For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 15:00 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Council+meting+&is…> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. *GNSO Council meeting audiocast* http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u *_Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)_*__ 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 12 April 2012 approved on 30 April 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-12apr12-en.htm <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-12apr12-en.htm> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf> * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. *_Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)_*__ A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. *_Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)_*__ Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. Refer to motion 1[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+20… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote *_Item 4: Update on the new PDP (10 minutes)_*__ In December 2011, the ICANN Board adopted, on the recommendation of the GNSO Council, the revised GNSO Policy Development Process. This session is to introduce the revised GNSO PDP and explain its new features in detail. Introduction to Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/intro-revised-gnso-pdp-14mar12-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/intro-revised-gnso-pdp-14mar12-en.pdf> 4.1 Update (Marika Konings) 4.2 Discussion *_Item 5: International Olympics Committee /Red Cross Names Drafting Team (IOC/RC DT) (15 minutes)_*__ On September 14, 2011, the GAC submitted a proposal to the GNSO Council to protect IOC and RC marks at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. At its March 26 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the IOC/RC DT's recommendations (see resolution passed by the Council here http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1 <https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1>). However, these recommendations did not contain any proposals with regard to the protection of these marks at the second level. On April 10, 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee and granted it all of the powers of the Board to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The Committee met on 10 April 2012 and resolved not to update the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at this time (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr…) On April 12, 2012, the GNSO Council approved a motion requesting an Issue Report on protection of names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. In the light of both the Board decision and the decision by the Council to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms at the top and second level for all new gTLDs , this discussion item aims to determine whether the Council should (i) continue the IOC/RC DT to recommend a complete response to the GAC proposal at the second level, (ii) disband the IOC/RC DT and prepare a response to the GAC proposal on its own, (iii) disband the IOC/RC DT until the potential new PDP progresses and delay any response to the GAC, or (iv) whether new instructions should be given to the DT. 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next Steps *_Item 6: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group( JAS WG) (15 minutes)_*__ This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG so that next steps for the group can be determined. 6.1 WG update from Staff (Kurt Pritz) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps *_Item 7: Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements - The WHOIS Access recommendation (5 minutes)_*__ The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. This agenda item is to determine what next steps, if any, should be planned for this project item. 7.1 Update from Staff/ISP (Marika Konings, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps *_Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG (10 minutes)_*__ The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 8.1 WG update from Staff (Steve Sheng) 8.2 Discussion *_Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)_*__ 9.1 Discussion on recent Board announcement to alter ICANN meeting Friday schedule. 9.2 Discussion on ALAC proposal for ICANN Academy. 9.3 URS update in draft budget - should the Council write to the Board to request that it be involved? (intro from Staff). *Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)* 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. 4. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. 5. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. 6. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. 7. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. 8. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. 9. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, 10. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. 11. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. 12. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." *Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (*GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <https://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>*)* 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. 1. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); 2. Approve a PDP recommendation; 3. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+0DST 03:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Folks, give us some additional advice: Chris and I will be on budget calls Tues and Wed. If NOT a Summit, or IF a Summit, what? We can't do much on substance on a budget camm, BUT we can say: high concern. Didn't get it right on any front. NOT representative of parties most affected. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:40:50 To: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be>; <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <johnberard(a)aol.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? I respect Phil and his diligent representation of his domainer clients on this issue but I disagree. The UDRP's preponderance of evidence standard combined with establishing the already high bar of bad faith registration, use or trafficking in domain names has worked well. As someone with experience suing cybersquatters, we can obtain "clear and convincing" evidence usually only after months and sometimes years of litigation through discovery. I agree with Anjali that business owners need to have a real remedy like the do not sell list that prevents registrations of brands at the second level along with a workable URS. The URS problems go way beyond the price. As currently drafted, the process is fatally flawed at $300 and certainly will not get better at a higher price. The issue goes needs a better and fuller reevaluation process with broader participation, including from BC members. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be>; 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'John Berard' <johnberard(a)aol.com>; 'Steve Delbianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; 'Chris at Andalucia' <chris(a)andalucia.com>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: 'Zahid Jamil' <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Lowering the current burden of proof from "clear and convincing evidence" (strong case) to the same as the UDRP, which is "preponderance of the evidence" (which could be as low as 51/49) is not consistent with targeting "clear cut cases of trade mark infringement". That would bring in "shades of grey" cases that are not suitable for URS (intended for slam dunk, black and white cases) and belong in UDRP. It would also convert URS from a supplement to a substitute vis-à-vis UDRP. No competent examiner can properly weigh the evidence and provide adequate due process in such a case for a fee in the $300 to $500 range, which includes not just their compensation but the administrative costs of the accredited provider. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 6:55 AM To: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'John Berard'; 'Steve Delbianco'; 'Chris at Andalucia'; 'bc - GNSO list' Cc: 'Zahid Jamil' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Dear all, AIM's members believe that we definitely need the URS, and as soon as possible. We need it to be a faster and cheaper solution than the UDRP, as the URS was originally meant to be. We also very much support the lowering of the burden of proof to deal with clear cut cases of trade mark infringement. Kind regards Marie From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: lundi 7 mai 2012 4:59 To: Marilyn Cade; John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? I agree - I think without really understanding what it is that they plan to "reconfigure", it's difficult to know whether it's policy or implementation. If we wait and see, will it be too late? What kind of preemptive action could we take here? Best, Elisa From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] <mailto:[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM To: John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised? Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree. We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ---------------- Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com <mailto:johnberard@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com <mailto:zahid@dndrc.com> To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> ; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper@markmonitor.com> Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> > Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> " <council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > 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) 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 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

3 2

Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised?Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree.We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; chris(a)andalucia.com; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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) 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 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

5 6

Re: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012)
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

We will add this specific topic to the BC call Friday as a question: how do we/BC affect defensive registrations_what is status of our proposals and how to advance them? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Hansen Anjali <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:08:35 To: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) I am at the INTA conference now and one of the speakers just put up the costs to block and register 5 trademarks - the cost was over $137,000 based on her model of enforcing across X number of new gTLDS. Why do brandholders have to pay these costs? I don't know the ideal process for reining in defensive registrations, but I'm on this committee and not on others. So I am raising it here. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:59 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Well, what you are saying implies reopening policy issues not just for the URS but for the function of the warning service tied to the TMC. If policy is to be reconsidered then why is that the exclusive province of this "committee', "summit", or whatever this newly made up process is when ICANN supposedly has a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process for developing policy? Who is on this "committee', and from what does it derive its authority? I understand the concerns of TM holders completely in this new gTLD context, although I'm not in agreement that the multiple new rights protections for new gTLDs are insufficient, or that a judgment can be made without seeing them in operation. But if policy matters are to be reopened there should be an explanation of why that is happening beyond the fact that an unrealistic price target for an adjudicative process can't be met, and they should be reconsidered in regular order through standard ICANN process and not something made up on the fly. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Hansen, Anjali [mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org] <mailto:[mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org]> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:43 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) That may be so, but I do not believe it is okay to make trademark holders defensively register in all of these new TLDS, so a compromise should be put forward by this committee. One that takes into account there may be authorized license holders, etc. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] <mailto:[mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Anjali: The TM Clearinghouse is tied to the warning service, which alerts registrants that their domain might be infringing and allows them to consider that, and the fact that they have been warned would almost certainly be a factor in any subsequent UDRP or URS action. However, as to your suggestion that "registrars will thereby put on notice not to sell those trademarks, or deviations thereof, to anyone except the actual trademark holders", that goes too far - there are many instances in which a registrant other than the trademark holder (e.g., an authorized reseller of a particular product or service) could register a domain incorporating a trademark without infringement. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Hansen, Anjali Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:15 AM To: 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Thanks Benedetta. 2091 new TLDs to be prepared for. My major concerns about this are below: 1) The first thing that I am up in arms about is that the ICM Registry responsible for the .xxx is also applying for .sex and .adult. ICM will allow all of those trademark owners who registered for domains in .xxx to now do the same in .sex and .adult. As you recall, ICM made many millions off of anyone who didn't want to be associated with its .xxx and now they will be allowed to make millions more. It seems as if the brilliant business model in domaining is to apply for a registry everyone is afraid of being associated with and then take their money . I am hoping this committee might want to insist that ICANN put an end to such trademark blackmail. I'd like to get my money back for the trademarks I've had to block in .xxx. Not to mention that ICM has reserved BBB.xxx for their own use despite not holding the trademark thereto. Thus, we couldn't block our most famous trademark from .xxx. 2) I believe the legal and fair approach is to have everyone file their trademarks in a central Trademark Clearinghouse and the registries and registrars will thereby put on notice not to sell those trademarks, or deviations thereof, to anyone except the actual trademark holders. Otherwise, we might have to defensively register or block in hundreds or even a thousand new TLDs. I'd appreciate it if this committee would take on this issue of defensive registrations again at the appropriate time. I appreciate all that you have done thus far, but ICANN hasn't taken the appropriate measures to date. Thanks everyone. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 4:29 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 4 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, held 2091 applications - either submitted or in progress - when it was taken offline on 12 April 2012. In addition, there are 214 potential applications that were registered prior to the 29 March cut-off date, but whose payments have not yet been received or reconciled. ICANN has received approximately USD $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs. As we have reported, we are in the process of notifying applicants whether they were affected by the software glitch, and plan to complete this process on or before Tuesday, 8 May. Shortly after that process is complete, we will announce the schedule for reopening TAS and completing the application period. Once the system is reopened, we will keep it open for at least five business days. We appreciate your understanding as we work to bring the TLD application system back online. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12 ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4983 - Release Date: 05/07/12

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012)
by Benedetta Rossi May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 4 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, held 2091 applications - either submitted or in progress - when it was taken offline on 12 April 2012. In addition, there are 214 potential applications that were registered prior to the 29 March cut-off date, but whose payments have not yet been received or reconciled. ICANN has received approximately USD $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs. As we have reported, we are in the process of notifying applicants whether they were affected by the software glitch, and plan to complete this process on or before Tuesday, 8 May. Shortly after that process is complete, we will announce the schedule for reopening TAS and completing the application period. Once the system is reopened, we will keep it open for at least five business days. We appreciate your understanding as we work to bring the TLD application system back online. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

5 9

Re: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

I understand several BC members are at INTA. Perhaps it is possible to get a sense from the IPC members there on their views re this? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 02:58:38 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <johnberard(a)aol.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I agree - I think without really understanding what it is that they plan to "reconfigure", it's difficult to know whether it's policy or implementation. If we wait and see, will it be too late? What kind of preemptive action could we take here? Best, Elisa From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM To: John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised? Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree. We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ---------------- Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com <mailto:johnberard@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com <mailto:zahid@dndrc.com> To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> ; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper@markmonitor.com> Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> > Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> " <council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > 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) 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 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>

2 1