<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Yes</div><div><br><br>Sent by notsosmart fone</div><div><br>On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <<a href="mailto:bkuerbis@INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG">bkuerbis@INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Happy to help with this as well.<div><br></div><div>-- Brenden<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM, joy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joy@apc.org" target="_blank">joy@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
+1 - I am happy to support this idea.<br>
Joy<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On 27/03/2013 9:47 a.m., William Drake wrote:<br>
> +1<br>
><br>
> Get some allies<br>
><br>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:28 PM, <a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu">Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu</a><br>
</div><div class="im">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu">Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I agree that the Council would be the appropriate filer in this<br>
>> case. As I mentioned in a different message, there seems to be a<br>
>> pattern that decisions are being made outside the GNSO policy<br>
>> processes - although that may be proven to not be the case in<br>
>> one or more of the instances we've discussed on this list. In<br>
>> any event I think it would be useful and appropriate for the<br>
>> Council to discuss this directly, and hope our Councilors can<br>
>> support this action. It seems to me also that before introducing<br>
>> the motion it may be worth investigating whether a Councilor from<br>
>> a different SG/House would be prepared to second it.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers Mary<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP<br>
>> Partnerships Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW<br>
>> HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA<br>
</div>>> Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</a>><br>
<div class="im">>> Phone: <a href="tel:1-603-513-5143" value="+16035135143">1-603-513-5143</a> Webpage:<br>
>> <a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>>><br>
</div>>> *From: * Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>>> *To:*<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>> *Date: * 3/26/2013 3:23<br>
>> PM *Subject: * Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing<br>
<div><div class="h5">>> an ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating<br>
>> the organization's policy development process?<br>
>><br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> I can support the NCSG filling such a complaint, though it would<br>
>> be better for the GNSO Council to file it.<br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps we can first introduce it as a motion for the next<br>
>> g-council meeting, and if the council decides against it, then<br>
>> we could do it independently.<br>
>><br>
>> avri<br>
>><br>
>> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Robin Gross wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint<br>
>>> against<br>
>> the organization's senior management for violating the<br>
>> organization's policy development process by adopting staff's<br>
>> "strawman solution" which never went through proper process (or<br>
>> any process for that matter).<br>
>>><br>
>>> The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates<br>
>> unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once<br>
>> infringed" theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that<br>
>> mark. This particular proposal was stitched together by TM<br>
>> lobbyists and staff when NCSG wasn't even in the room - because<br>
>> it was 10pm at night in LA and I had left for my flight on<br>
>> staff's assurances that no policy discussions would take place<br>
>> that evening. ALAC wasn't in the room either (although Evan &<br>
>> Alan participated remotely on the phone in the middle of their<br>
>> night).<br>
>>><br>
>>> The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and<br>
>>> not an<br>
>> implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability<br>
>> to make decisions. [Although the first time staff published its<br>
>> report on the mtg's discussion of that proposal, staff's blog<br>
>> report differed from what the CEO stated to meeting participants<br>
>> and said this proposal had been characterized as an<br>
>> "implementation" decision by mtg participants. It took some<br>
>> persistence and insistence from mtg participants to correct<br>
>> staff's blog post and classify this proposal as "policy" - which<br>
>> was the truth of what the LA mtg participants had said. Finally<br>
>> staff gave-in, as I was not the only one to complain about the<br>
>> inaccurate reporting, and they changed the web-posting to<br>
>> reflect that the group - and staff - had classified this proposal<br>
>> as "policy, and not implementation" at the LA mtg. The CEO<br>
>> apologize for staff's "mistake". I'm sure it's all another<br>
>> coincidence...]<br>
>>><br>
>>> The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN<br>
>>> could<br>
>> not adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new rights<br>
>> (and ICANN isn't supposed to creating new rights).<br>
>>><br>
>>> The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the<br>
>> particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its<br>
>> head). How is anyone going to criticize a company or product<br>
>> that was "found to abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in<br>
>> an entirely unrelated circumstance? This proposal actually<br>
>> thumbs its nose at trademark law because trademark law recognizes<br>
>> that "once infringed" does not create some magical new category<br>
>> of rights that is allowed to trample on the expression rights of<br>
>> all the innocent and lawful uses of a word (that resembles a<br>
>> trademark). But I'll save the complaints about how nonsensical<br>
>> the substance of this proposal is for another email. This email<br>
>> is just about the insanity of ICANN senior staff attempting to<br>
>> usurp the bottom-up policy development process to appease<br>
>> powerful political interests.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated<br>
>> policies, the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best, Robin<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street,<br>
>>> San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: <a href="tel:%2B1-415-553-6261" value="+14155536261">+1-415-553-6261</a> f:<br>
>>> <a href="tel:%2B1-415-462-6451" value="+14154626451">+1-415-462-6451</a> w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org</a><br>
</div></div>>>> <<a href="http://www.ipjustice.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org/</a>> e:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)<br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a href="http://www.enigmail.net/" target="_blank">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRUhj4AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1RcIAL+/1U69GY6VyFvxK1HCDNR1<br>
YzJZgRDYvNLl2B8f8koyvzutRbEEoGUBsDqyU42ZEoMX9rw/XSGMuC5zKFKTZ6Yp<br>
QL7/OXJNKW24rqUb4SrXf763ilONgSzZdWud41a5yPb7PA/y/N0M0+wZmpntASK+<br>
ukmWJpV46Qg7C2Z8tk1fY+uLkBM9X6OAPUQaYItr52Yi5rn6YSz2ofPp8xi9B7r6<br>
oR6qQnXcFvcbGmilZpc/gMoFf8ZhqjfthDnlbWFXkCxFO4npXFky8espPD3rbMvE<br>
Cay+ao9oq7W9J7vF9A7ss+Zw4FjP+7bGHg3QYUS92Kl3y6KOD8j052rC7PLEZU8=<br>
=1KI4<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>