ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your submission

[Edward Morris]

Thanks so much for doing this Maria.

My fear is we're going to see more of this in the new ICANN. Without the
fiscal strength of corporate support noncommercial stakeholders are often
at a disadvantage. Couple that with a staff under orders to be more
efficient and we certainly have some challenges to overcome. Is the
"multi-equal stakeholder" concept enunciated by Fadi Chehade going to
transform itself into, with apologies to Orwell, a typology where "all
stakeholders are equal but some stakeholders are more equal than others"?
Let's hope not.

Anything the rest of us can do to support you on this?




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121130/25dbdad1/attachment.html>