RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?

["Marie Pattullo" <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
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@xxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400
CC: zahid@xxxxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
elisa.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /  
<http://www.neustar.biz/>
www.neustar.biz