Hi,

Ok, multiple complaints might be good.

We have to do anything we can to stop this trend before it destroys ICANN's nature as a unique multistakeholder governance organization and it becomes just another regular American corporation.

avri

On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:40, Robin Gross wrote:

> Thanks, Avri.  I do believe the GNSO Council should file a complaint against staff for this.   I'm wondering if there should be at least 2 separate and different complaints filed.  One from the GNSO Council on how its role and the GNSO Policy Development Process (as stated by ICANN) was entirely circumvented and disregarded by senior staff in the adoption of its strawman.  An NCSG complaint could focus on the inequality of participation afforded to NCSG at the LA meeting where staff and the TM lobbyists cooked this up.  Remember, the CEO said in plain unequivocal terms that NCSG would not be allowed participate at the same level as CSG at that meeting.  It was 14 CSG to 2 NCSG who were allowed to participate (and of the 2 NCSG reps, I was on my flight back home and Kathy was on the phone in the middle of the night having difficulty getting the floor from the in-room meeting participants, who were drinking beer and wine for 3+ hours.)  Maria filed a complaint on the inequality issue previously, but NCSG as a group did not.  Now that staff said it would implement the policies cooked up at this ad-hoc LA meeting at which NCSG was expressly discriminated against, the time has come for NCSG to file its complaint as a group.
> 
> Robin
> 
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 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    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>