Thanks Michael, I agree that the optics here are poor - particularly given this does seem inconsistent with how ICANN has previously treated coordinated submissions. Back in 2017, when numerous intellectual property interests were sending in identical, form letters regarding the importance of maintaining open-ended unaccountable Whois, I didn't see these being disregarded as being spam submissions. Nor should they have been, as while the messaging was identical, the sentiments were sincerely held. I hope that the Ombudsman might reconsider his stance on this matter.

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 12 September 2019 01:13, Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ugh. This is a really bad look for the Ombudsman. These kinds of
> coordinated campaigns are absolutely standard practice for civil
> society. Open Media, for example, does this all the time in public
> comment periods, providing their network with a list of "talking
> points" and a link, and encouraging them to submit things on these
> lines. So long as these are actual people or organizations that are
> submitting the comments (as opposed to bots) - it's 100% legitimate.
> There's been no indication that the comments here were automated, or
> that there was anything fishy about the organizations submitting the
> comments.
>
> Even putting aside his ultimate recommendation to dismiss the
> complaint, this is a very disappointing and narrow-minded stance for
> the Ombudsman to take.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael Karanicolas
> Wikimedia Fellow
> Yale Law School
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:22 PM Ayden Férdeline [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> > I am sharing this article for information purposes:
> > org price cap complaints more like “spam” says Ombudsman
> > http://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman
> > Kind regards,
> > Ayden Férdeline