[ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS?

Hong Xue hongxueipr at gmail.com
Mon May 7 01:44:46 UTC 2012

Alan, the issue  not new. WIPO, which tried 80% of UDRP cases, had
openly expressed that it could not handle URS cases at the proposed
price before and after FAG release. URS proceeding design (with appeal
and retrial) is several times more complicated with UDRP but the price
is around 1/3 of it.

Given the situation of WIPO, the other three UDRP providers, which are
more "local" and "small", would not be able to handle URS as well.


On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> The following message is from the GNSO Council
> list and has generated a lot of reaction.
> To summarize: Apparently the potential providers
> of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System)
> have said that the described process cannot be
> done for the expected price (or even a fair
> amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some
> on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there
> was not at least a heads-up that this rework
> needed to be redone, and that the only formal
> indication of it was in a minor item in the
> proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed
> way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least.
> For a more complete summary of my views on this,
> see (including one from me - see my comment to
> the GNSO Council list at
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html.
> Alan
>>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>>To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400
>>Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS?
>>Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but
>>buried in the new budget document
>>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 at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  / www.neustar.biz
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

Professor Dr. Hong Xue
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China

More information about the ALAC mailing list