ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your submission

Mon Dec 3 16:31:32 CET 2012

Oh no! As I plugged that phrase into Google, I was hoping against hope it
didn't mean 'abandon hope, all ye who enter'.

Oh well. If we can't rely on hope, then bloody-mindedness will have to
suffice.

Maria

On 3 December 2012 15:22, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hope?
>
> Isn't there a sign at the gates of ICANN:  Lasciate ogne speranza, voi
> ch'intrate
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:42, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
> > 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
> > 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/20121203/279bbdc1/attachment-0001.html>