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

[Robin Gross]

Evan,

In your theory of a model for IG where ICANN staff decisions replace  
bottom-up policy, how are the staff held accountable and to whom?

Thanks,
Robin


On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> [ donning firefighter's suit ]
>
> Allow, perhaps, a different perspective.
>
> In its current ICANN state the so-called multi-stakeholder process  
> is, through the GNSO, simply a compact between domain sellers (ie,  
> CPH) and buyers (ie, NCPH). The rest of the world is left outside.  
> It's "multi", but it's exclusive and unequal.
>
> While the ALAC certainly has its structural flaws, it does attempt  
> to at least offer a perspective of those who intend to never buy or  
> sell a domain, yet are heavily impacted by the decisions made  
> inside the compact. And yet neither end users nor governments have  
> a full seat at the table. The NCUC claims to speak for end users,  
> but you can't join if you don't own a domain -- and the vast VAST  
> majority of people out there don't own a domain.
>
> Not all believes that everyone on earth ought to own a domain. As  
> such, a large segment of the population will be forever shut out of  
> representation of policy making, at least via the GNSO.
>
> Sure, ALAC is occasionally invited to the table. But as was  
> evidenced so clearly in the Consumer Metrics WG, its opinions can  
> be cavalierly tossed aside if "real" GNSO members don't like the At- 
> Large PoV. And when the public interest efforts of the ALAC  
> coincide with those of the NCUC (as they did on issues such as  
> Applicant Support), we're still in the minority and heavily out- 
> resourced.
>
> So, while you may vociferously object to it, you may want to  
> consider that what is considered ham-handed Staff intervention by  
> some might be considered by others that finally someone -- even  
> occasionally and partially -- is asserting the interests of non- 
> domain-owning end-users. Fadi's early references to not just multi- 
> stakeholderism, but multi-EQUAL-stakeholderism, resonate within  
> many in At-Large which has too often seen the end-user PoV shut out  
> of the compact's internal deliberations.
>
> As Alan Greenberg noted in his analysis of the staff action on the  
> TMCH Strawman proposals.
>
> Although the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in  
> terms of what required policy development), all of the IP  
> protections that ICANN will be moving ahead with were supported by  
> the ALAC, and the one additional protection that the ALAC  
> explicitly did not support will not be implemented.
>
> Similarly, many in At-Large have no problem at all with the RAA  
> unilateral right to amend.
>
> My main point is that not everyone is disgusted with the current  
> path. Calling the opposition unanimous, as some have, is  
> inaccurate; however, such claims re-enforce the perception that the  
> end-user PoV is ignored. ICANN staff under Fadi's watch -- with all  
> of its flaws -- is now seen by a significant number, as part of a  
> system of checks and balances against what the domain buyer/seller  
> compact wants to inflict outside the ICANN bubble. Given the clear  
> threat to the MSM as seen in WCIT and elsewhere, arguably some form  
> of this was inevitable.
>
> The ALAC, through its R3 paper, attempted to envision an evolved  
> set of checks and balances. It may not be THE answer but the status  
> quo may not be sustainable if it isn't true MSM.
>
> I think this issue is certainly worth discussing between the NCSG  
> and ALAC in Beijing.
>
> If not, that's OK too.
>
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130322/a473b1be/attachment-0001.html>