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

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 02:58:38 
To: <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <johnberard@xxxxxxx>; 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
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@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 <mailto:johnberard@xxxxxxx> 
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400
CC: zahid@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; elisa.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> >
Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> " 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / www.neustar.biz 
<http://www.neustar.biz/>