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

[Maria Farrell]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121130/f168de7a/attachment.html>