[NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the organization's policy development process?
Norbert Klein
nhklein at GMX.NET
Wed Mar 27 05:01:37 CET 2013
In my individual capacity and as a NCUC ExCom member, I want to share my
opinion: I think it would be appropriate and important to file an
Ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the
organization's policy development process. Just to informally raise the
voice of NCSG and even GNSO positions have not resulted in a
rectification of the problems, so to initiate a higher level official
complaint is a necessary next step.
Norbert Klein
On 3/27/2013 5:11 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> Happy to help with this as well.
>
> -- Brenden
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:54 PM, joy <joy at apc.org
> <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 - I am happy to support this idea.
> Joy
>
> On 27/03/2013 9:47 a.m., William Drake wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Get some allies
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
> <mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
> > <mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu <mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that the Council would be the appropriate filer in this
> >> case. As I mentioned in a different message, there seems to be a
> >> pattern that decisions are being made outside the GNSO policy
> >> processes - although that may be proven to not be the case in
> >> one or more of the instances we've discussed on this list. In
> >> any event I think it would be useful and appropriate for the
> >> Council to discuss this directly, and hope our Councilors can
> >> support this action. It seems to me also that before introducing
> >> the motion it may be worth investigating whether a Councilor from
> >> a different SG/House would be prepared to second it.
> >>
> >> 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 <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
> <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>>
> >> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 <tel:1-603-513-5143> Webpage:
> >> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >> *From: * Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>>> *To:*
> >> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> >> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>> *Date: * 3/26/2013 3:23
> >> PM *Subject: * Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing
> >> an ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating
> >> the organization's policy development process?
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I can support the NCSG filling such a complaint, though it would
> >> be better for the GNSO Council to file it.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we can first introduce it as a motion for the next
> >> g-council meeting, and if the council decides against it, then
> >> we could do it independently.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Robin Gross wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint
> >>> against
> >> the organization's senior management for violating the
> >> organization's policy development process by adopting staff's
> >> "strawman solution" which never went through proper process (or
> >> any process for that matter).
> >>>
> >>> The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates
> >> unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once
> >> infringed" theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that
> >> mark. This particular proposal was stitched together by TM
> >> lobbyists and staff when NCSG wasn't even in the room - because
> >> it was 10pm at night in LA and I had left for my flight on
> >> staff's assurances that no policy discussions would take place
> >> that evening. ALAC wasn't in the room either (although Evan &
> >> Alan participated remotely on the phone in the middle of their
> >> night).
> >>>
> >>> The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy.
> >>>
> >>> ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and
> >>> not an
> >> implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability
> >> to make decisions. [Although the first time staff published its
> >> report on the mtg's discussion of that proposal, staff's blog
> >> report differed from what the CEO stated to meeting participants
> >> and said this proposal had been characterized as an
> >> "implementation" decision by mtg participants. It took some
> >> persistence and insistence from mtg participants to correct
> >> staff's blog post and classify this proposal as "policy" - which
> >> was the truth of what the LA mtg participants had said. Finally
> >> staff gave-in, as I was not the only one to complain about the
> >> inaccurate reporting, and they changed the web-posting to
> >> reflect that the group - and staff - had classified this proposal
> >> as "policy, and not implementation" at the LA mtg. The CEO
> >> apologize for staff's "mistake". I'm sure it's all another
> >> coincidence...]
> >>>
> >>> The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN
> >>> could
> >> not adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new rights
> >> (and ICANN isn't supposed to creating new rights).
> >>>
> >>> The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the
> >> particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its
> >> head). How is anyone going to criticize a company or product
> >> that was "found to abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in
> >> an entirely unrelated circumstance? This proposal actually
> >> thumbs its nose at trademark law because trademark law recognizes
> >> that "once infringed" does not create some magical new category
> >> of rights that is allowed to trample on the expression rights of
> >> all the innocent and lawful uses of a word (that resembles a
> >> trademark). But I'll save the complaints about how nonsensical
> >> the substance of this proposal is for another email. This email
> >> is just about the insanity of ICANN senior staff attempting to
> >> usurp the bottom-up policy development process to appease
> >> powerful political interests.
> >>>
> >>> If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated
> >> policies, the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no?
> >>>
> >>> Best, Robin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street,
> >>> San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261
> <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261> f:
> >>> +1-415-462-6451 <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451> w:
> http://www.ipjustice.org
> >>> <http://www.ipjustice.org/> e:
> >> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRUhj4AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1RcIAL+/1U69GY6VyFvxK1HCDNR1
> YzJZgRDYvNLl2B8f8koyvzutRbEEoGUBsDqyU42ZEoMX9rw/XSGMuC5zKFKTZ6Yp
> QL7/OXJNKW24rqUb4SrXf763ilONgSzZdWud41a5yPb7PA/y/N0M0+wZmpntASK+
> ukmWJpV46Qg7C2Z8tk1fY+uLkBM9X6OAPUQaYItr52Yi5rn6YSz2ofPp8xi9B7r6
> oR6qQnXcFvcbGmilZpc/gMoFf8ZhqjfthDnlbWFXkCxFO4npXFky8espPD3rbMvE
> Cay+ao9oq7W9J7vF9A7ss+Zw4FjP+7bGHg3QYUS92Kl3y6KOD8j052rC7PLEZU8=
> =1KI4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130327/071e426b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list