[NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down. Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution²

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

It seems to me that there may be a good topic for the SG to raise with
the Board here during the Board-NCSG meeting in Beijing. Several recent
developments such as: (1) the Board's unilateral contract amendment
power for both Registry and Registrar Accreditation Agreements; (2) the
sudden introduction of the PIC Specification (presumably related to GAC
pressure); (3) the imposition of a to-be-determined new WHOIS policy;
and, now, (4) the adoption of much of the TM "strawman" proposal - all
call into question the relevance and sanctity of the GNSO's policy
development processes. 

This relates also to the whole "policy vs implementation" discussion
that's ongoing. 

Two ideas for the group to consider, therefore: 

(1) [To our Councilors] Will the GNSO Council stand aside and allow
these process runarounds to occur? 

(2) [To our SG officers and all members] How about asking the Board to
explain how it is that these recent unilateral changes were introduced
despite opposition by some in the community and no formal GNSO consensus
view taken? 

I'd add, though, that - per Ed's point - the SG does need to take a
much more pro-active approach. While we have done better recently with
responding to public comment requests and statements, and have some
improved relationships with other groups in the community, we have not
leveraged or developed the kind of influential relationships that are
needed to be treated as other than with tolerant condescension. In
addition, because we're all volunteers, we often cannot follow through
with some excellent suggestions for action that are made on this list.
That's too bad. 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php


>>> 


From:  
Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 

To: 
<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> 

Date:  
3/22/2013 9:13 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN is bottom-up, except for when it is top-down.
Fwd: Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse ³Strawman Solution² 

Hi


If all of the Sr. Staff's current gambit succeeds (e.g. perversion of
TMCH, the unilateral RA & RAA etc) it will become easy to argue that
ICANN Sr. Staff has captured ICANN and that the vaunted ICANN
Multistakeholder Model is just a fig leaf.

I wonder will the Board allow this? 
Or is this perhaps the Board's doing?
Do we have the transparency in this organization to know whether the
Staff is leading or the Board is leading?
I don't think so (I know that understanding is part of what ATRT2 is
supposed to achieve.)

If indeed the Staff is leading, as appears to be the case, it is hard
to understand how the current leadership would be allowed to keep its
job.  The speed with which the policy development process has been
replaced by a command and control process is startling.  If ICANN is
going to be saved, quick action is probably necessary.

As for Rod, it is true there was a lot to complain about and I
complained as much as anyone.  But the fundamental was that he actually
seemed to at least theoretically support the Multistakeholder Model. 
Our new great leader seems determined to destroy it.   Might be time to
try again.

avri




On 22 Mar 2013, at 08:11, Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:

> On 03/22/2013 07:51 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
>> Agreed! We need to play in external forums, either as complainants
or
>> supporters. I've thought we could do more by showing that we're
useful
>> supporters of the ICANN model (as distinct from supporting
everything
>> ICANN-the-org does) in other forums where it's challenged. We stand
>> firmly behind multi-stakeholder bottom-up governance, and in that
vein,
>> demand that *all* the stakeholders have voice in the consensus
policy
>> decisions.
>
>  In the board, there is only one rep from the staff. The structure
> doesn't really represent the power the staff wields.  If they wanted
> to backdoor these proposals, they should have at least created
> the Staff Support Organization (SSO).
>
>  So how do we go about doing changing this?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130322/de9c19de/attachment-0001.html>