[ALAC] Fwd: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz

[Alan Greenberg]

Messages related to URS and JAS from Kurt Pritz 
in preparation for GNSO Council meeting starting 2.5 hours from now:

My translation/summaries:

URS: Word "Summit" in budget was an ill-advised 
choice. Process will be bottom up as per the STI.

JAS: ALAC and GNSO Council agreed that JAS group 
could continue to work on implementation. JAS 
group is doing that and had now made an explicit 
recommendation that a "Son of JAS" be involved in 
carrying out implementation. If the GNSO Council 
desires, that recommendation can go to the GNSO 
COuncil instead of being implemented immediately.

Alan

>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:18:07 -0700
>Subject: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz
>
>
>Dear All,
>
>Please find below a message from Kurt Pritz in 
>relation to agenda item 6 (JAS WG) and item 9.3 
>(URS) for today's GNSO Council meeting.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: Kurt Pritz <<mailto:kurt at icann.org>kurt at icann.org>
>To: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>marika.konings at icann.org>
>Subject: For the Council meeting
>
>Council Members:
>
>I am sorry that I could not join the Council 
>meeting. Please accept the following brief 
>report on issues that have raised by the Council 
>leadership and through your email list. More information can be provided.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kurt
>
>
>Uniform Rapid Suspension:
>There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit"
>Implementation work conducted on the URS to date 
>indicates that the the implementation will not 
>attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee 
>per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO 
>staff, direct communication with the IPC, and 
>examples understood from the ICM registry and 
>Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary 
>goal of the URS, additional work and study 
>should be undertaken to determine if amendments 
>to the program might attain the fee goal and 
>retain the safeguards and other features of the 
>program. This study must be undertaken by a 
>community group. While the scope of the effort 
>is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve 
>resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 
>budget.The line item in the budget is the 
>placeholder for those resources while the best 
>way to accomplish the work can be designed. 
>Again, the work will be done through a 
>bottom-up, community discussion similar to the 
>the work done to create and review the URS in 
>the first instance. The timing of the budgeting 
>process required that we create the line item 
>before planning for this work could be drafted 
>and worked through the community.
>
>Joint Applicant Support Working Group
>The GNSO Council approved an extension of the 
>JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to 
>complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that 
>have since been completed, and to request that 
>the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to 
>review the outcome of the ICANN implementation 
>of the JAS 
>recommendations. 
><http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. 
>We continue to review implementation details 
>with the JAS – either the entire JAS or a 
>sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS 
>members have recommended that the community play 
>a role in in the planning for the recruitment, 
>training and operation of the "SARP," the review 
>panels that will evaluate financial assistance 
>applications. This planning includes the idea 
>that the SARP include a Community Member 
>Representative or CMR. Additional information 
>can be provided to the GNSO to augment 
>information provided by the JAS. A report on the 
>details can be made directly to the GNSO Council 
>and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.