Saying there should have been a more "front and center" announcement is very different from saying something was intentionally hidden. That is my point. Thomas has cleared up this point now and explained that's not what he meant so let's now all concentrate on a letter, if that's what we want to do. I can suggest some base wording such as: Dear Steve, ICANN's FY 2013 budget document indicates that there is a plan to reconfigure the URS (provide excerpt from budget document). As you know, the URS was part of the GNSO's subsequent work on its original new gTLD PDP, carried out through a couple of GNSO groups, the IRT initially, and then the STI. As such, we on the GNSO Council are surprised that plans to reconfigure the URS were not shared with us prior to being included in the budget document. Further, we strongly recommend that the GNSO be included in the work that is to be carried out on the URS as described in the draft budget document. Yours.... Thoughts? Stéphane Le 4 mai 2012 à 15:45, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Stephane,
Without getting into the debate about whether staff intentional hid this in the budget process, and I am not alleging that at all, I think we could all agree that for a subject like this - the notion of changing the URS - should have been a little bit more front and center and probably best would have been better to disclose in a separate announcement as opposed to within a note in the budget. I admit that I did not catch it during my first reading. It took an article Phil Corwin drafted for me to notice it.
Lets discuss this during the GNSO Council call and I believe the letter is a good idea.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:48 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
Thanks all, great discussion.
My personal view is aligned with those expressed here: it's a no-brainer that the GNSO should be involved in any project undertaken to rework the URS.
Putting my Chair hat back on, should the Council express the desire to make that point officially, I can suggest that I be tasked with writing to the Board to request that we be involved.
I will add this to the AoB on our agenda for next week as well.
Stéphane
P.S.: Thomas, I do not agree with your apparent allegations that there was an attempt to "hide" this in the budget process. I think that is an unfair characterization of Staff's work there. The budget drafting process is extremely well-publicised by ICANN Staff, who even go to the trouble of organization several webinar sessions to introduce the draft. In that regard, the URS info is clearly in the draft and there for all to see. So I would urge that we do not systematically adopt paranoid reactions to what Staff does, as this does not help our aim of working hand-in-hand with them.
Le 3 mai 2012 à 21:45, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
My understanding is that ICANN has been told by likely providers that $300-500 is an unrealistic number given the various steps and time lines involved in the current URS process. To me, this means that arriving at a realistic cost (whatever that turns out to be) will necessarily involve examining and likely changing the URS itself.
Since the URS was developed by the GNSO (through the STI refining the original proposal from the IRT) it seems to me essential that the GNSO be involved in any further change, refinement and discussion of it (whether at summits or ICANN meetings or through WGs).
Cheers Mary
From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> CC: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/3/2012 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? Jeff, all,
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 this should definitely be a matter for the GNSO to work on. I agree with you, Wendy and Alan.
This should go on the agenda for our next meeting in my view.
May I ask that the Council gets more background information on this? If I remember correctly, the original figure of 300 USD per case was already increased to 300-500 USD in one of the presentations in CR (I guess Kurt presented it that way) and it would be interesting to see whether even that figure was not sufficient to cover the costs.
I would also like to ask why such important information is "hidden" in the budget document. The information that the URS cannot be implemented as planned is something that needs to be treated carefully. The URS was presented as one approach to address the shortcomings of the UDRP for the new namespaces. In my view any changes to the URS as laid down in the AGB - if any - need to be carefully balanced in order to avoid an uproar.
I know that a lot of trademark owners have been more than hesitant to provide ICANN with sensitive information during their TLD applications. The TAS glitch did not particularly help to build trust. Changes to the URS should therefore include the community to avoid further erosion of confidence in ICANN.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 03.05.2012 um 20:09 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
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@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz