The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently issued a detailed press release regarding Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) cases for which it provided arbitration services in 2011 (http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0002.html ) and, once again, the number of WIPO filings was up.
ICANN Staff: URS Summits Budget Item is a Placeholder for “Community Discussion” – But Where Was the Community Discussion of Whether URS Should be Reconfigured?
Last week we noted that the draft ICANN FY 2013 Budget contained $175,000 in funding for two “Summits” to be devoted to reconfiguring the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) rights protection mechanism for new gTLDs in order to achieve a “lower cost model” (http://internetcommerce.org/URS-Summits).
ICANN Budgets for Two URS Reconfiguration “Summits” to Satisfy Trademark Interest Goal of a “Lower Cost Model”
ICANN has released its Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) and while we haven’t reviewed it in its entirely yet we did notice that it contains two references to the implementation of the new Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS
ICANN has just announced that, starting with the June meeting in Prague, the ICANN Board will no longer meet and cast votes on the final day of its three annual public meetings (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr12-en.htm).
The best thing about the proposed .Com renewal agreement is what’s not in it – the untested Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) mechanism, which trademark interests initially portrayed as a narrow supplement to the UDRP yet continue to try to convert into a cut-rate substitute for that increasingly unreliable arbitration process. URS is required to be in place when the first new gTLD is added to the root, which will probably occur in the first part of 2013 (unless we witness further TAS-like delays).
One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with ICANN is that, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with its policy decisions, it often seems incapable of sticking to them for very long. Certainly there’s a virtue to being open to reexamining certain matters. But when an issue has been debated ad nauseam there comes a point where no new argument can be made, no new information is forthcoming, and there’s absolutely no reason to revisit the matter -- especially if it’s a divisive one.
GNSO Council to Discuss Whether ICANN Engaged in “Misrepresentation of the Truth” on Thick WHOIS for .Com
ICANN has put the DNS-centric community on notice for quite some time that the upper limit of its ability to conduct simultaneous evaluations of new gTLD applications would be around 500, and if a greater number of applications was received in the opening round it would need to resort to a batching system that used some means of prioritizing applications for processing. But it was always vague about how batching might work.
On March 27th ICANN published a proposed revision of the .Com registry agreement to govern VeriSign’s continued management of the most populous gTLD registry from December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2018. The announcement filled us with a sense of déjà vu tinged with nostalgia, as the ICA was established in reaction to the controversy that ensued when the 2006 .Com agreement, now being renewed, was unveiled as the negotiated settlement of litigation brought against ICANN by VeriSign.