[ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS?

Mon May 7 05:54:32 UTC 2012

Hi, we should make sure NO IRT model again.

But it does seem ICANN is poorly prepared for implementation of its
own complicated trademark measures. No trademark clearinghouse
provider has been announced yet, although clearinghouse services are
supposed to be in place even before operation of URS (for
pre-registration trademark protection). It seems TMCH is completely
internal-decided.

Hong

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Hong, you are correct that it is not knew. But the fact that ICANN had
> decided that action needed to be taken, the form that this action is taking
> is, and the lack of involvement of the GNSO which created the original plan
> (based on some VERY difficult negotiations between the various stakeholders)
> is new.
>
> You might remember that following the lack of acceptance of the URS proposed
> by the IRT, ICANN staff developed their own proposal (presumably based on
> the IRT model factoring in community input). That model was pretty well
> universally condemned. This sounds disturbingly like another go-around of
> that methodology.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 06/05/2012 09:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Hong
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>> >>
>> >>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>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 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
>> http://www.iipl.org.cn/
>> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>> Beijing 100875 China
>
>

-- 
Professor Dr. Hong Xue
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China