[ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Oct 22 14:15:56 UTC 2012

At 21/10/2012 11:41 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>Thanks, Alan, as commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto,
>we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it
>seems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting
>could be enabled under the name "implementation". What do they want to
>"draft" in the Drafting Team?

I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. 
At this point, it would appear that little would 
need to be changed to meet the price points. 
Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of 
complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There 
have also been comments that requiring electronic 
submission might lower costs and that too sounds 
reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. 
It is structural changes that we need to be careful about.

>  Is the team cross-constituency or solely
>for GNSO?

That will likely be up to the GNSO. The STI was a 
GNSO activity, with the ALAC included due to the 
sitting Liaison function and I think a GAC 
observer (not sure on that). Whether this time it 
will be the same or more open as in a WG, I 
cannot say. If I had to predict, I would say the former.

>  Normally implementation plan is completed by staff.

These days it also includes a review team 
typically from the original policy group, to make 
sure that the implementation is true to the 
intent (and not only the words) of the 
implementation. This is a VERY good thing.

>Why is
>it referred back to GNSO?

Well, if a change to a GNSO approved 
policy/implementation is needed (and I said IF), 
then it is reasonable to go back to that group 
for further input. Clearly we would like At-Large to be involved though.


>On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Alan Greenberg
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> > Promising note regarding the URS.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >>From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> >>To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up
> >>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>Please be aware of the following note from Olof
> >>Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues.
> >>
> >>Jonathan
> >>
> >>From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org]
> >>Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33
> >>To: jonathan.robinson at iprota.com
> >>Cc: Kurt Pritz
> >>Subject: URS follow-up
> >>
> >>Dear Jonathan,
> >>Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO
> >>Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all
> >>Council members for the constructive discussions
> >>we had on URS matters on 18 October! The
> >>willingness to consider a drafting team to
> >>address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated.
> >>
> >>The subsequent URS session the same day in
> >>Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to
> >>presentations from NAF and WIPO as  potential
> >>URS providers, we had the advantage of a very
> >>late addition to the agenda ­ a presentation
> >>from a “new entrant”, Intersponsive, intending
> >>to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the
> >>target fee, although with some adjustments of
> >>the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they
> >>would be able to stay within the target fee,
> >>provided reasonable limitations could be
> >>established to the current translation
> >>requirements and to the number of domain 
> names covered by a single complaint.
> >>
> >>I realize that you and other Council members
> >>couldn’t attend this session, as it partially
> >>overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but
> >>the recording is available at
> >><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/u 
> rs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3.
> >>Furthermore, there are a number of relevant
> >>documents posted on our recently established URS
> >>web page at
> >><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>h 
> ttp://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs,
> >>notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC,
> >>with considerations, proposals, some costing
> >>aspects and, most importantly, questions needing
> >>to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of 
> particular interest in that regard).
> >>
> >>I believe these recent developments further
> >>clarifies the need for a drafting team to
> >>establish realistic implementation measures
> >>based on the URS text. I look forward to further
> >>contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future.
> >>
> >>Very best regards
> >>Olof
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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