Hey Kathy,<br><br>Thank God we have you at NCUC to watch over our shoulders. Maria -- she's a fine member doing her greatest, the best way she knows how.<br><br>Long live NCUC!<br><br>Alex, Nairobi, Kenya.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hi Maria,<br>
I am sorry to share but I don't agree with the Complaint filed
below. We were included in the meeting, and we did participate in
it. We had the ability to bring in more people, but Wendy had a
flight conflict, and Konstantinos had a NY session at the same
time. There was certainly an imbalance of people, but our concerns
were well-represented. We were regularly recognized to speak.<br>
<br>
If the session had been as closed and imbalanced as the complaint
describes, then we would not have been in the room (for 3 1/2 of
the 4 days, I was on the phone) and the results of the IPC/BC
proposals would have been adopted. I have to tell you that they
(IPC/BC) are very, very unhappy that their lead proposal -- for
blocking of their trademark across all gTLDs -- was itself
blocked. <br>
<br>
If the issue were privacy or freedom of expression, we would be
fighting for it. Here the issue is TM protection, and the concerns
on the other side are sincere. I get it, and Fadi tried to listen
-- not in a closed room, but in a room with me and Robin, Alan and
Evan (ALAC), Registrars and Registries. It's so much better than
the old days of disappearing back into the closed ICANN Board Room
and listening to Joe Sims, of Jones Day law firm, tell ICANN what
to do. <br>
<br>
The contracts for the Trademark Clearinghouse needed to be signed,
the system specifications needed to be finalized. The IPC/BC
presented a bunch of unreasonable things, and most were recognized
as unreasonable and pushed back. I think Fadi Chehade, as our new
CEO, felt the need to listen to the concerns, and I am so, so, so
glad that he did it when we were in the room too. <br>
<br>
I would recommend that the complaint be withdrawn because I think
it will have the unintended effect of pushing things into the back
room again. Fadi worked very hard to ensure that our concerns were
heard and voiced and shared. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy (Kleiman)<br>
<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Thanks so much for doing this Maria.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My fear is we're going to see more of this in the new ICANN.
Without the fiscal strength of corporate support noncommercial
stakeholders are often at a disadvantage. Couple that with a
staff under orders to be more efficient and we certainly have
some challenges to overcome. Is the "multi-equal stakeholder"
concept enunciated by Fadi Chehade going to transform itself
into, with apologies to Orwell, a typology where "all
stakeholders are equal but some stakeholders are more equal than
others"? Let's hope not.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anything the rest of us can do to support you on this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Maria
Farrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com" target="_blank">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">Dear NCSG colleagues,<br>
<br>
I've submitted a complaint to the ICANN Ombudsman regarding
the closed and unbalanced nature of the Trademark Clearing
House process. <br>
<br>
Below, FYI, is the text I submitted. I will keep you posted
on any follow-up. <br>
<br>
All the best, Maria<br>
<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ombusdman complaint - TCMH</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apparent decision by staff to disregard
GNSO policy-making
process and community consensus on the Final Applicants
Guidebook and already
agreed outcomes to run its own, closed and biased process
regarding Trademark
Clearing House and new gTLDs. Decision by staff to enter
into secret
negotiations with GNSO Commercial Stakeholders Group and
invoke a new, closed
process to develop a proposal by that sole group. Acts by
staff to constitute
two in-person meetings (Brussels and Los Angeles) and
several phone conferences
to 'develop' a one-sided proposal. Acts by staff to
exclude and prevent evenly
balanced participation by other affected stakeholders,
notably noncommercial
ones. Explicit statement by staff that it would not
countenance equal
participation by noncommercial stakeholders at Los Angeles
meeting - end result
was two noncommercial and twelve commercial. Refusal by
staff to offer travel
support to meetings, disadvantaging noncommercial
stakeholders. Failure of
staff to run meeting according to agreed timings,
resulting in further
disadvantaging of noncommercial representatives who needed
to leave on time to
catch flight - meeting continued regardless and came to
'agreements' in absence
of affected parties. Insistence of staff on conducting
‘straw polls’ to
determine agreement of those present, despite unbalanced
nature of
participation. Failure of staff to communicate basic
transparency requirements
such as names of those invited to participate (staff has
yet to respond to 11/19/12
request to name participants: <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/%23comments" target="_blank">http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments</a>),
information
about meetings before they took place, publication of
documents
before they were discussed. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Overall failure of staff to be neutral
and transparent in
its dealings with stakeholder groupings, leading to a
marked bias in favour of
commercial stakeholders. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> HOW IT AFFECTS ME<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a current and potential (in the new
TLDs) domain name
registrant, and as a member of the NCSG, I have been
disadvantaged by ICANN
staff conducting a closed and imbalanced process to
determine substantive
issues on rights protection mechanisms. Substantive
changes are being proposed
that will affect me as a future domain name registrant,
and I have had no
opportunity to participate in the process. As a member of
the NCSG, I have been
disadvantaged by the clear bias shown by staff against
this group's opportunity
to participate on an equal basis with commercial
stakeholders. I am simply one
of many people who could not participate in a closed,
biased and expensive
process that may nonetheless unravel years of hard-won
community agreement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WHAT I HAVE DONE ABOUT IT<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I publicly requested on 11/19/12 that
the names of the
participants in this imbalanced process be published:
<a href="http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments" target="_blank">http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments</a>
. This
request has been ignored. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wrote directly to the CEO by email on
11/26/12, expressing
my concerns. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wrote to the GNSO Council on
11/29/12, in my capacity as a
councilor, expressing my concerns at the flawed process:
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13902.html" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13902.html</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> ANY OTHER INFORMATION<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe the NCSG was invited by the
CEO to appoint four
people to participate in this group. Due to the extremely
late notice given to
us of the considerable time commitment required, and the
expense of travel to
Brussels / Los Angeles, it was impossible for more than
two of our constituency
to attend; one in person at the Los Angeles meeting, and
one by phone, also one
or two by phone to Brussels. As we are not paid by our
employers to participate
in ICANN, the late notice and expense prevented even the
paltry four
'invitations' being taken up.</p>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message
----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">ICANN Ombudsman (via
SeeMore System)</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ombudsman@icann.org" target="_blank">ombudsman@icann.org</a>></span><br>
Date: 30 November 2012 12:34<br>
Subject: ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your
submission<br>
To: <a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com" target="_blank">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Maria,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your submission. Below is a copy of your
complaint which was sent to the ombudsman.<br>
It will be reviewed and you will receive a response as
soon as possible.<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
ALTERNATE LANGUAGE: English<br>
<br>
############################################<br>
############################################<br>
SUBMITTED BY<br>
<br>
Name:<br>
Maria Farrell<br>
<br>
<br>
############################################<br>
############################################<br>
CONTACT INFO<br>
<br>
Registry:<br>
<br>
<br>
Registrar:<br>
<br>
<br>
Domain:<br>
<br>
<br>
Comments:<br>
Apparent decision by staff to disregard GNSO policy-making
process and community consensus on the Final Applicants
Guidebook and already agreed outcomes to run its own,
closed and biased process regarding Trademark Clearing
House and new gTLDs. Decision by staff to enter into
secret negotiations with GNSO Commercial Stakeholders
Group and invoke a new, closed process to develop a
proposal by that sole group. Acts by staff to constitute
two in-person meetings (Brussels and Los Angeles) and
several phone conferences to 'develop' a
one-sided proposal. Acts by staff to exclude and prevent
evenly balanced participation by other affected
stakeholders, notably noncommercial ones. Explicit
statement by staff that it would not countenance equal
participation by noncommercial stakeholders at Los Angeles
meeting - end result was two noncommercial and twelve
commercial. Refusal by staff to offer travel support to
meetings, disadvantaging noncommercial stakeholders.
Failure of staff to run meeting according to agreed
timings, resulting in further disadvantaging of
noncommercial representatives who needed to leave on time
to catch flight - meeting continued regardless and came to
'agreements' in absence of affected
parties. Insistence of staff on conducting
‘straw polls’ to determine agreement
of those present, despite unbalanced nature of
participation. Failure of staff to communicate basic
transparency requirements such as names of those invited
to participate (staff has yet to respond to 11/19/12
request to name participants: <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments" target="_blank">http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments</a>),
information about meetings before they took place,
publication of documents before they were discussed.<br>
Overall failure of staff to be neutral and transparent in
its dealings with stakeholder groupings, leading to a
marked bias in favour of commercial stakeholders.<br>
<br>
<br>
############################################<br>
############################################<br>
WHOIS<br>
<br>
No WHOIS info<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>