Fwd: ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your submission

Mon Dec 3 15:42:44 CET 2012

Thanks, Alain.

I've never used the process before, but thought it best to exhaust all the
available options. I can't say I'm full of hope for the outcome, given most
of the damage is already done on this particular issue. But taking action
may raise the perceived costs of routing around the policy process in the
future. Or maybe not, we'll see!

All the best,m

On 2 December 2012 15:57, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Maria,
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> In my short time in ICANN I have used the Ombudsman's road twice and find
> the process arduous, time consuming and unclear in times of resolution. It
> seems in practice to be based on a dominant philosophy of facilitating
> mitigation, so if one party is stubborn and resists mitigation, the process
> fizzles out. When time is of the essence, as it is most of the times,
> issues do not get resolved via the Ombudsman.That is my personal opinion.
>
> Alain
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear NCSG colleagues,
>>
>> I've submitted a complaint to the ICANN Ombudsman regarding the closed
>> and unbalanced nature of the Trademark Clearing House process.
>>
>> Below, FYI, is the text I submitted. I will keep you posted on any
>> follow-up.
>>
>> All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>> Ombusdman complaint - TCMH
>>
>>  NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT
>>
>> 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:
>> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments),
>> information about meetings before they took place, publication of documents
>> before they were discussed.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>  HOW IT AFFECTS ME
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> WHAT I HAVE DONE ABOUT IT
>>
>> I publicly requested on 11/19/12 that the names of the participants in
>> this imbalanced process be published:
>> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments .
>> This request has been ignored.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wrote directly to the CEO by email on 11/26/12, expressing my concerns.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wrote to the GNSO Council on 11/29/12, in my capacity as a councilor,
>> expressing my concerns at the flawed process:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13902.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ANY OTHER INFORMATION
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: ICANN Ombudsman (via SeeMore System) <ombudsman at icann.org>
>> Date: 30 November 2012 12:34
>> Subject: ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your submission
>> To: maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Dear Maria,
>>
>> Thank you for your submission. Below is a copy of your complaint which
>> was sent to the ombudsman.
>> It will be reviewed and you will receive a response as soon as possible.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ALTERNATE LANGUAGE: English
>>
>> ############################################
>> ############################################
>> SUBMITTED BY
>>
>> Name:
>> Maria Farrell
>>
>>
>> ############################################
>> ############################################
>> CONTACT INFO
>>
>> Registry:
>>
>>
>> Registrar:
>>
>>
>> Domain:
>>
>>
>> Comments:
>> 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:
>> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments),
>> information about meetings before they took place, publication of documents
>> before they were discussed.
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ############################################
>> ############################################
>> WHOIS
>>
>> No WHOIS info
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>
>
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
> interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
> reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
> si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
> sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
> votre coopération.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
> of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
> other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
> distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
> in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
> destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121203/afa3e89d/attachment-0001.html>