Philip Corwin of the Internet Commerce Association just addressed the ICANN board in the open public session and asked about ICANN selecting a provider for the Trademark Clearing House and the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension).
As you will see below from the transcript ICANN said at the previous ICANN meeting in Dakar in October that a provider for the URS would be selected within a month and of course now it is March and one still hasn’t been selected.
It then took three people to answer the question, after the Chair and the CEO of ICANN punted one of the executive team attempted an answer and seemed to get his letters mixed up, between UDRP and the URS.
Here you go:
“Good afternoon.”
“Speaking on behalf of the internet commerce association representing domain investors and developers, I would like to address the one of the two new rights protections for new tlds.
One of course is the trademark clearinghouse and the implementation advisory groups,”
The other new rights protection, the URS , the Uniform Rapid Suspension nothing has yet been done on that.”
“At the (ICANN) Dakar meeting, I asked icann staff when we could expect to see implementation begin for URS.
“I was told in about a month.”
“Five months later, I asked the question again and was told that an RFP (for a provider to run the URS) will be put out in about a month.”
This is disturbing.”
We think it’s problematic that the Board has suggested that a credible URS can be done at a very low price point.
The only analogous procedure available right now is the RAS available at for .XXX (domains) and that’s administered by National Arbitration Forum and they charge exactly the same as what they charge for a UDRP, $1300, not $300 to $500.
The main difference is in the rapidity of the response.
Finally, in regard to the open comment on defensive registrations, the ICA did not comment on that because the notice was quite clear that the questions were being asked about the top level but many interests responded with suggestions to change the URS, which is the second-level remedy, and again, bringing up suggestions have been rejected by the board before to turn the URS into a cut-rate UDRP, particularly with lowering the burden of proof and providing a transfer option.”
“We would suggest that the time has come to begin implementing URS and not again reopening it and reigniting a divisive debate about what’s in it.”
“We recognize that trademark interests need a credible process for protecting the legitimate interests, but registrants need a credible process as well that protects their due process rights, and this is critically important to the success of new TLD’s.”
“That success ultimately is going to be based on registrants adopting them, and if registrants think their rights are not adequately protected, that will discourage registrations. thank you very much for your consideration.”
Board Chairman Crocker then stated:
Thank you, Rod, would you like to work out a response there.”
“Rod Beckstrom: Sure.
Thank You, Phil, and I’m going to ask our expert on the executive team, Kurt Pritz, to provide a response.”
Kurt Pritz: Thank you, Philip.
“All good issues and they’ve all been discussed at this meeting, so for example, with the trademark clearinghouse and getting some information to potential applicants on costs — and registries and registrars, we met with and we informed them that we want to get for this program.”
“We do continue to march along to program plans on URS and UDRP, so you’ll see the RFT for UDRP come out essentially right after this meeting.”
Philip Corwin: for UDRP?”
Kurt Pritz: For URS. I’m sorry. yeah, we’ll reinvent. In a meeting with the irp constituency, we certainly identified the importance to getting to a price target on URS and thank you there will be work with the commune community on the process and potential providers to make sure we get to that. because we understand that if the URS isn’t cheaper and quick than UDRP, then it’s lost its potential effectiveness as a rights protection tool.
Mike, just to clarify, I didn’t expect a URS provider to be selected one month after Dakar but I sure as hell expected something to be done to start the URS implementation process before now.
We already know that WIPO and even NAF — which we have asked ICANN to investigate for its mishandling of $1300-and up UDRP cases — have already said they can’t do a URS for the $300-$500 price range promised to IP interests who want a “cheaper and quick” UDRP alterantive — and Kurt’s sticking to that as a priority was not exactly reasuring. IP attorneys used as experts charge upwards of $600 per hour, so the proposed price range doesn’t even cover an hour of their time to analyze a case and write a decision, much less cover the provider’s administrative costs.
So we’ll wait and see what’s in the RFP and if any credible providers respond. But, if ICANN sticks to the promised pricing, the question for a lot of potential new gTLD registrants is going to be whether they want to base their Internet business/identity on a domain that can be extinguished in a “cheaper and quick” arbitration.
What is ICANN still around for, I paid them over $1k last year, that is a lot of 18 cent transactions, for what, fancy hotels, dinners, these guys never had a clue.
There has to be a better way, with all the money, and domains domainers control why can’t we take charge against all these fools that maintain a lavish lifestyle off us.
Thanks for keeping an eye on these morons at the top, and handing it to them where possible. Cheers.
The UDRP is already way biased against domain registrants, the URS is going to be more so.
Be prepared for domain investment in entirety to be downgraded to penny stock if it actually is implemented as envisioned.
After all, who’d invest 100s of 1000s of $$$ into a domain when someone with $300 can take it away without due process?
@ samit the udrp is already way biased
The udrp is not way biased! Yes there are some bad decisions and yes some panelists have tried to and have succeeded at perverting the rules but having said that the udrp is not way biased. It was developed to address clear instances of cybersquatting and guess what, the vast vast majority of cases decided under the udrp are squats! Yep it’s true most cases are pretty clear cut. Again that doesn’t mean it won’t be used and or abused by individuals seeking a cheap resolution to a legal problem that exists only in their minds or not at all but in general the system works. For every bad decision under the udrp there are 1000s of correct ones. If rdnh rulings allowed for damages that might tighten things up somewhat but the number of problems created by the udrp are far far fewer than the number it solves
hmm… It’s always something. Thanks Phil and Mike.
Is the URS going to be only for new-TLDs or is it a replacement for UDRP?
What is the chance of URS actually implemented?
RK
At this point the URS is only going to be for new gTLD’s not existing extensions but TM groups are pushing for UDRP reform that would make such a system apply to all TLD’s
The URS actually being implemented, well its required by the Guidebook and the TM guys will continue to insist on it, the biggest hurdle for ICANN to find a provider who will agree to do them for $300-$500 a pop
@ MHB
Thank you for your response. Now I understand it better.
Re: URS provider:
I would nominate Rick Schwartz 🙂
Who and how is the ICA being financed these days?
Mony
I think you can look on their website for the list of sponsors
We still give $10K a year.
“NTIA is privileged to be involved in creating this new public safety broadband network, because together we can set a brand new standard for public safety communications. I’m talking not only about the state-of-the-art LTE technology the network will use. I also mean the way we as a community go about the business of ensuring reliable and first-class interoperable communications for first responders. A new standard, resting on a single, cutting-edge, and nationwide network, will be part of President Obama’s vision of an “America Built to Last”— a new standard that sets aside smaller differences in favor of a single unified approach and a blueprint for single national network architecture. A blueprint that will have ample state and local input – no doubt about that – but that never loses sight of the goal that brought us to this point: a single nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network.
The new law gives public safety the D Block and a total of twenty megahertz of prime spectrum, seven billion dollars to be funded from auction proceeds (without adding to the deficit), and a new way for doing the business of running and operating the public safety broadband network.”
FTC tells global Internet body to cut back domain name plan
They are asking ICANN to change the January kickoff into a test program with a much smaller number of applicants.
“We strongly believe that ICANN should address these issues before it approves any new gTLD applications. If ICANN fails to address these issues responsibly, the introduction of new gTLDs could pose a significant threat to consumers and undermine consumer confidence in the Internet,” the FTC officials wrote.
http: //www. nextgov. com/nextgov/ng_20111219_1641.php
UPDATE: The NTIA and FTC are expected to convince ICANN to accept only ONE new gTLD per TSA Applicant which would amount to 290 new top level domains at this point. $5000 for a TLD could be a bargain with no added fees.
UPDATE: The USA NTIA made it clear at the ICANN meeting that they and
the GAC do not expect to approve more than 500 new gTLDs.
500 Applicants for gTLDs are expected to “go public” soon with their plans causing a Free Market Landrush to reach the Domainer’s radar screens.
.MUSIC and .GREEN are two examples of early Applicants with a lot of PR
NY Times begins Exposing the INTERNAL conflicts at ICANN
The outgoing CEO is starting to expose the Systemic Cronyism as the 900 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to admit is in the room.
The entrenched Chairman of the Board is becoming MORE defensive.
[The emperor has no clothes?]
The U.S. Government has been called on to referee the growing fiasco.
What did they create in 1998 ? How can they sweep it all under the rug?
“The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an arm of the U.S. Commerce Department, said it had canceled a request for proposals to run the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority because none of the bids it had received met its requirements.”
http: //www. nytimes. com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-naming-firm-goes-public. html?pagewanted=2&_r=1