Hi George, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.. is it that the MOUs ICANN has with the providers are insufficient? https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs Thanks, Kristine -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 5:14 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS Proposal #33 - putting URS providers under contract Hi folks, In preparing for tomorrow's presentation, I stumbled upon the following blog post by Philip Corwin (then of the ICA) in 2013: https://www.internetcommerce.org/urs_truth_breach/ which documented that "the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, and then the board unanimously adopted all of its recommendations regarding the URS" Steve Crocker (ICANN Chairman at that time), in response to a question, noted that: "Yes, a contract is being developed and additional URS providers will be added." The blog post went on to say: "But to ICANN we give a total FAIL for its disingenuous response to our question about contracts for URS providers. Rest assured, this is a subject on which we do not intend to rest or retreat." I didn't reference this document in my proposal, but did want to put it into the record in advance of our call, to further support the background and rationale of the proposal. Folks may want to read it in its entirety, instead of simply the snippets above. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg