[bc-gnso] FW: URS Implementation to Commence -- New ICA Webpost

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI---


http://internetcommerce.org/URS_Implementation

URS Implementation Finally to Commence Under GNSO Direction

For more than a year ICA has been asking ICANN when it will commence with the 
task of implementing the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for the new gTLD 
program as it currently stands in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). The URS is a 
required rights protection mechanism (RPM) that must be in place before any new 
gTLDs can open, and the current model balances trademark holder and registrant 
rights and is the result of a laborious two-year process resulting in 
recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and 
subsequently by the ICANN Board. Each of our inquiries about the commencement 
of URS implementation have received the same general response of "soon", but no 
perceptible progress had been made since the new gTLD program launched in the 
spring of 2011.
We have just learned that ICANN senior executive Kurt Pritz has sent a publicly 
available e-mail to GNSO Council Chairman Stephane Van Gelder advising him that 
URS implementation will finally begin in earnest within a few weeks. That 
exchange is below, and here are our key take-aways:

  *   ICANN continues to assert that the present URS model does "not appear to 
meet cost requirements". Yet, so far as know, and our knowledge includes a 
targeted document disclosure request filed on this and related subjects (see 
http://internetcommerce.org/WIPO2ICANN_URS_Summits), ICANN has no documented 
cost analysis proving this assertion and is instead relying on the feedback of 
the two principal UDRP providers, WIPO and NAF, who have their own separate 
rationales for making such an assertion. At the conference held yesterday in 
Washington held to discuss Melbourne IT's HARM proposal (about which we shall 
post separately) there was a fairly broad consensus that ICANN should publish 
an RFP for the URS and solicit bids from a broad range of credible arbitration 
providers beyond the thin ranks of WIPO and NAF, based on the common sense 
belief that a URS focused on slam dunk infringement should not require a great 
deal of expert time or associated cost (if it takes more than 15 minutes to 
render a decision, it's not a black-and-white case and belongs in a UDRP 
proceeding). There was also considerable support for the notion that, if the 
price target of $300-$500 simply cannot be met, ICANN should consider at least 
short-term subsidization by using some of the $350 million it has collected in 
new gTLD application fees. ICA believes it is premature to "flesh out some of 
those [alternative] models for possible implementation", and thereby 
contemplate significant revisions of URS, until we have market testing of the 
true cost of implementing the present model. Before there is any consideration 
of "potential solutions", let's determine if there really is a cost problem 
that needs to be solved.
  *   A meeting on URS implementation, possibly in the form of a webinar, will 
be scheduled for the first week of October. We are unsure who will be invited 
to speak at the webinar and whether it will include adequate representation of 
the registrant community, both commercial and non-commercial. Let's wait and 
see.
  *   A second meeting will be scheduled during the upcoming ICANN meeting in 
Toronto. We believe it's is essential that this critical meeting result in a 
credible path to timely implementation.
  *   ICANN has stated that "the meetings we are having are open to all". This 
is consistent with the open and transparent approach to URS implementation that 
ICA has consistently advocated, and we intend to be intimately involved.
  *   ICANN understands the key role played by the GNSO Council in developing 
and approving the present model and "that the GNSO leadership might want to 
conduct the URS discussions in a certain way", and is willing to "work in 
whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed". From our viewpoint, this position is 
an extremely positive development because it respects the key policymaking role 
that the Council plays for gTLDs, puts the ICANN community as represented by 
the Council rather than ICANN staff in the driver's seat on designing and 
managing the implementation process, and is a far better approach than the 
"Summit" concept contemplated earlier this year. It also undercuts potential 
efforts by some brand interests to try to circumvent the Council through direct 
lobbying of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, through it, the 
ICANN Board.
  *   ICANN aims to "seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the 
URS was designed" and to balance that with a commitment to "seek to ensure that 
registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model". Assuring 
that registrants enjoy the essential due process rights written into the 
current policy, and that they are not diluted in pursuit of complainant cost 
reduction, will be ICA's foremost goal as this discussion ensues.
All in all, these are overdue but overall positive developments. Again, it's 
our belief that any substantial alteration of the URS based on cost goals 
should not even be considered until we have some accurate, market-tested idea 
of the cost of implementing the current model -- and that does not yet exist. 
Even then, we are wary of reopening this carefully constructed RPM because some 
of the ideas floating around for reducing cost could substantially reduce 
registrant rights in new gTLDs and convert the URS from a narrow supplement to 
the UDRP into a cut-price, rights-gutting alternative to it. That's an 
unacceptable bait-and-switch.
But ICANN's recognition of the central role to be played by the GNSO Council in 
considering any alteration is positive. It is critically important that 
whatever is done on URS implementation get off to a sound launch in Toronto, 
because there is an unusually long half-year gap between it and the next, April 
2013 ICANN meeting in Beijing. A botched process could lead to further pushback 
in the launch date for new gTLDs, while one that results in evisceration of 
registrant rights could fatally undermine their prospects for success.
The e-mail exchange follows:

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:08 AM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion

Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information.

The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future.

Best,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61

Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit :


Hi Stephane:

I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on 
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the 
input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that 
URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In 
Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential 
solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those 
models for possible implementation. We want to have one meeting in about two 
weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some 
face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled. 
The first meeting will be announced shortly.

I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not 
match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We 
recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are 
having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to 
conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of 
developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those 
interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the 
GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and 
timeliness goals for which the URS was designed and also seek to ensure that 
registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the IRT and 
STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we can carry 
on in a way acceptable to the GNSO.

I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI.

I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions.

Regards,

Kurt



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

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.