I feel your pain, Robin.<div><br></div><div>Let's first state the obvious: none of this has anything to do with traditional trademark protection. We've been past that point for some time. I'm still in shock over ICM's Sunrise B "nonuse" trademark...think of the concept, a nonuse trademark. Now we are apparently going to be offering some semblance of privilege for misspellings. We've mutilated the cybersquatters, now let's kill the typosquatters!</div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope what's been going on dispels the notion of Mr. Chehade as this wonderful forward looking man sympathetic to the downtrodden internet user. Fadi Chehade as an example of diversity? Folks, we replaced one Stanford alumnus with another. ICANN is the only group on earth where the Ivy League needs an affirmative action program. I know I'm in the minority here but I actually liked the first guy better. For all his excesses, behavioral issues, things many of you experienced that I didn't, Rod, despite his imperial tendencies, got some things right. He knew he wasn't running a corporation. A Kingdom perhaps, a corporation no.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One of the things I most dislike about strawman is the elevation of UDRP decisions to be the co-equal of national law. '...domain names would only be accepted for association with an existing Clearinghouse record, and only on the basis of a determination made under the UDRP or national laws.' How many years overdue are we for a UDRP review? It is a one sided biased arbitration process with numerous flaws. Now it's decisions are to be given added amplification. That makes complete sense: to the corporate brand owners and their wholly owned arbitrators.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I discovered at the Los Angeles intersession meeting that our SG was either the rot in the dwelling or the crazy uncle in the attic, or so implied Mr. Chehade on his own and with a little prompting. I didn't like either characterization. However, if Mr. Chehade and his staff would like to think of us in this way I'm OK with it but with one exception: I want to be the crazy uncle in the attic with an assault rifle. Him you have to take seriously. At the moment I'm not sure the Mr. Chehade or his staff feel that way about us. If they did I'm quite sure we in the NCUC would not have had the problems we've had getting space for a policy conference in Beijing. You jerk around the crazy uncle in the attic, not the guy in the attic with the rifle.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Since becoming involved in this SG I've heard a lot of complaining about how the business community goes running to Washington when they don't get what they want out of the multistakeholder process. Absolutely true. Milton has been great at documenting this. Well, that appears to be how things work. I think we need to have a discussion at both the Constituency and SG level about playing that game ourselves.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In order to make the multistakeholder model work I'd suggest we need to formulate an external strategy to keep things internally fair. We had success doing something like this with the Article 29 letter. I'm thinking we need to target our friends in Washington, Brussels and elsewhere and talk to them about our current structural problems. Be it his special meetings with CEO's (but not with noncommercial CEO's), the extended time given BC at the intersessional, Strawman, staff empowerment, empire building through ICANN expansion: it is clear where the leadership of ICANN is taking us and I'd suggest it is not where we as a SG want to go. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'd strongly believe that the most effective strategy to counter these developments is to reach out to our external allies. A letter from noncommercial CEO's to Mr. Chehade and Mr. Crocker may be more effective than a protest of our own. A Congressional letter of inquiry addressed to both ICANN and the NTIA ( 'How can you implement policy you admit was improperly developed') is something Mr. Chehade and company will have to respond to. I'd suggest that a coordinated external effort now on the specific procedural issues we've been discussing might have the desired effect of reigning in the attempted administrative control of the entire multistakeholder process.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Extreme? Well, when the respected and experienced Chair of our SG suggests that we're close to the time where we need to take our ball and go home...and declare the battle lost...that should be a sign that we need to try some different strategies. I hope we together can figure out what those strategies should be as we gather to meet, both in person and remotely, in that land of internet openness and freedom, the Peoples Republic of China. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Ed</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Despite the fact that Fadi Chehade <a href="http://domainincite.com/11732-industry-man-chehade-admits-strawman-mistake" target="_blank">admitted</a> the TMCH and staff's 'strawman solution' was a mistake for violating the proper policy development process, staff has decided to go forward with some of the strawman's more controversial proposals (attached staff memo).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Most notably, the creation of entirely new and unprecedented rights such its proposal to give trademark holders privileges to +50 derivations of their trademark. It is an insane proposal that exists no where in trademark law and in fact, turns trademark law on its head by presuming that any subsequent use of trademark by any other party will always be an infringement - simply because at one point in time, someone else in an entirely different situation infringed that trademark. It is an insane proposal that would never have come from a balanced process, even by ICANN standards.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>NCSG's strawman response:</div><div><a href="http://ipjustice.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/NCSG-Strawman-Response.pdf" target="_blank">http://ipjustice.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/NCSG-Strawman-Response.pdf</a></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>The <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chehade-28feb13-en.pdf" target="_blank">GNSO Council told</a> ICANN this staff proposal was a policy and not implementation decision and not to do it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But staff is including this insane proposal in the new gtld program despite all its countless flaws, and without any serious explanation for it can violate its own processes in such a blatant and serious way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The strawman solution was a staff creation. It was never something "the community" developed as falsely claimed by ICANN in this memo. And the meeting at which staff claims "the community" developed it was 14 CSG members to 2 NCSG members. I was there and it was a <a href="http://ipjustice.org/wp/2012/11/18/icanns-11th-hour-domain-name-trademark-policy-negotiations-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-dissecting-the-strawman/" target="_blank">total farce</a> of an experience on so many levels.</div>
<div><br></div><div>ICANN staff are committing a huge fraud on the public with this white wash and complete violation of its stated policy processes. We really do have senior staff at ICANN that do not feel bound to follow the multi-stakeholder bottom-up policy development process and believe in ICANN staff unilaterialism. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Between this major new debacle and staff's insistence on unilateral control in all contracts and right to insert un-negotiated terms at the last minute, I'm becoming more and more convinced that ICANN is simply "using" civil society especially, but all the stakeholders really, to try to claim it represents some kind of public interest bottom-up process and make-up unprecedented rights. From what I'm seeing, the only "interest" ICANN operates in, is its own interest to expand its power. Unless the community can reign in this power-grabbing staff, we should all just walk away from ICANN as an experiment in multi-stakeholder Internet governance that has sadly ended.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sigh,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>PS: Also note ICA's comments on ICANN's announcement to adopt its strawman:</div><div><br></div><div><div>"In regard to expanding the TMCH database to incude up to 50 previously abused variations, Fade informed members of the US Congress on September 19, 2012:</div>
<div><br></div><div>“It is important to note that the Trademark Clearinghouse is intended to be a repository for existing legal rights, and not an adjudicator of such rights or creator of new rights. Extending the protections offered through the Trademark Clearinghouse to any form of name would potentially expand rights beyond those granted under trademark law and put the Clearinghouse in the role of making determination as to the scope of particular rights. The principle that rights protections ‘should protect the existing rights of trademark owners, but neither expand those rights nor create additional rights by trademark law’ was key to work of the Implementation Recommendation Team…”</div>
<div><br></div><div>And ICANN’s own summary of the Strawman Model clearly states that this proposed expansion of the scope of trademark claims involves policy and not mere implementation:</div><div><br></div><div>“The inclusion of strings previously found to be abusively registered in the Clearinghouse for purposes of Trademark Claims can be considered a policy matter. This proposal provides a path for associating a limited number of additional domain names with a trademark record, on the basis of a decision rendered under the UDRP or a court proceeding. Given the previous intensive discussions on the scope of protections associated with a Clearinghouse record, involving the IRT/STI, we believe this needs guidance from the GNSO Council.”</div>
<div><br></div><div>So why does ICANN now believe that this expansion is within its powers, and that GNSO Council guidance is not required? The written memo they just issued does not provde a satisfctory explanation."</div>
<div><br></div><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font:12.0px Helvetica"><b>From: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font:12.0px Helvetica">David Olive <<a href="mailto:david.olive@icann.org" target="_blank">david.olive@icann.org</a>></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font:12.0px Helvetica"><b>Date: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font:12.0px Helvetica">March 20, 2013 2:17:42 PM PDT</font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font:12.0px Helvetica"><b>To: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font:12.0px Helvetica">"<a href="mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-infoalert@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-infoalert@icann.org</a>></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font:12.0px Helvetica"><b>Subject: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font:12.0px Helvetica"><b>[Soac-infoalert] Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution²</b></font></div>
<div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;min-height:14px"><br></div> <div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:14px"></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div><br></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<ol><li> <div><div><br></div><h3>New gTLDs, "Strawman" and Contract Negotiations</h3><p>Fadi's Report on Milestones and Deadlines<br> <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/new-gtld-milestones-and-deadlines/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/video-icon-rollover-26x27-17oct12.png" alt="Video Icon">Watch Fadi's vlog »</a><br>
<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solution-memo-20mar13-en.pdf" target="_blank">Read "Strawman" Memo »</a><br> <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-tmch-strawman-20mar13-en.pdf" target="_blank">Review Public Comments »</a></p>
</div></li></ol></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;font-size:15px"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<span style="font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;font-size:15px">--</span></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial;font-size:15px">David A. Olive</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><div><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial">Vice President, Policy Development Support</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial">1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 </span></div><div><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial">Washington, D.C. 20005</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Calibri,Verdana,Helvetica,Arial">Office: <a href="tel:202.570.7126" value="+12025707126" target="_blank">202.570.7126</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:202.341.3611" value="+12023413611" target="_blank">202.341.3611</a></span></div>
</div><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><img width="57" height="57" type="image/png"><u></u><u></u></p><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><div style="font-size:14px"><br></div><br></div><br></blockquote></div></div>
</div><br><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">_______________________________________________</div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">
soac-infoalert mailing list</div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><a href="mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-infoalert@icann.org</a></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert</a></div> </blockquote></div><br><div> <span style="text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;font-size:12px;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px"><div>
<br><br></div><div><br></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: <a href="tel:%2B1-415-553-6261" value="+14155536261" target="_blank">+1-415-553-6261</a> f: <a href="tel:%2B1-415-462-6451" value="+14154626451" target="_blank">+1-415-462-6451</a></div>
<div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br></span><br> </div><br></div></div><br></blockquote>
</div><br></div>