Dear NCSG colleagues,
I've submitted a complaint to the ICANN Ombudsman regarding the closed and unbalanced nature of the Trademark Clearing House process.
Below, FYI, is the text I submitted. I will keep you posted on any follow-up.
All the best, Maria
Ombusdman complaint - TCMH
NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT
Apparent decision by staff to disregard GNSO policy-making process and community consensus on the Final Applicants Guidebook and already agreed outcomes to run its own, closed and biased process regarding Trademark Clearing House and new gTLDs. Decision by staff to enter into secret negotiations with GNSO Commercial Stakeholders Group and invoke a new, closed process to develop a proposal by that sole group. Acts by staff to constitute two in-person meetings (Brussels and Los Angeles) and several phone conferences to 'develop' a one-sided proposal. Acts by staff to exclude and prevent evenly balanced participation by other affected stakeholders, notably noncommercial ones. Explicit statement by staff that it would not countenance equal participation by noncommercial stakeholders at Los Angeles meeting - end result was two noncommercial and twelve commercial. Refusal by staff to offer travel support to meetings, disadvantaging noncommercial stakeholders. Failure of staff to run meeting according to agreed timings, resulting in further disadvantaging of noncommercial representatives who needed to leave on time to catch flight - meeting continued regardless and came to 'agreements' in absence of affected parties. Insistence of staff on conducting ‘straw polls’ to determine agreement of those present, despite unbalanced nature of participation. Failure of staff to communicate basic transparency requirements such as names of those invited to participate (staff has yet to respond to 11/19/12 request to name participants: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments), information about meetings before they took place, publication of documents before they were discussed.
Overall failure of staff to be neutral and transparent in its dealings with stakeholder groupings, leading to a marked bias in favour of commercial stakeholders.
HOW IT AFFECTS ME
As a current and potential (in the new TLDs) domain name registrant, and as a member of the NCSG, I have been disadvantaged by ICANN staff conducting a closed and imbalanced process to determine substantive issues on rights protection mechanisms. Substantive changes are being proposed that will affect me as a future domain name registrant, and I have had no opportunity to participate in the process. As a member of the NCSG, I have been disadvantaged by the clear bias shown by staff against this group's opportunity to participate on an equal basis with commercial stakeholders. I am simply one of many people who could not participate in a closed, biased and expensive process that may nonetheless unravel years of hard-won community agreement.
WHAT I HAVE DONE ABOUT IT
I publicly requested on 11/19/12 that the names of the participants in this imbalanced process be published: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments . This request has been ignored.
I wrote directly to the CEO by email on 11/26/12, expressing my concerns.
I wrote to the GNSO Council on 11/29/12, in my capacity as a councilor, expressing my concerns at the flawed process: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13902.html
ANY OTHER INFORMATION
I believe the NCSG was invited by the CEO to appoint four people to participate in this group. Due to the extremely late notice given to us of the considerable time commitment required, and the expense of travel to Brussels / Los Angeles, it was impossible for more than two of our constituency to attend; one in person at the Los Angeles meeting, and one by phone, also one or two by phone to Brussels. As we are not paid by our employers to participate in ICANN, the late notice and expense prevented even the paltry four 'invitations' being taken up.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ICANN Ombudsman (via SeeMore System) <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 30 November 2012 12:34
Subject: ICANN Ombudsman Case System: Thank you for your submission
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Maria,
Thank you for your submission. Below is a copy of your complaint which was sent to the ombudsman.
It will be reviewed and you will receive a response as soon as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATE LANGUAGE: English
############################################
############################################
SUBMITTED BY
Name:
Maria Farrell
############################################
############################################
CONTACT INFO
Registry:
Registrar:
Domain:
Comments:
Apparent decision by staff to disregard GNSO policy-making process and community consensus on the Final Applicants Guidebook and already agreed outcomes to run its own, closed and biased process regarding Trademark Clearing House and new gTLDs. Decision by staff to enter into secret negotiations with GNSO Commercial Stakeholders Group and invoke a new, closed process to develop a proposal by that sole group. Acts by staff to constitute two in-person meetings (Brussels and Los Angeles) and several phone conferences to 'develop' a one-sided proposal. Acts by staff to exclude and prevent evenly balanced participation by other affected stakeholders, notably noncommercial ones. Explicit statement by staff that it would not countenance equal participation by noncommercial stakeholders at Los Angeles meeting - end result was two noncommercial and twelve commercial. Refusal by staff to offer travel support to meetings, disadvantaging noncommercial stakeholders. Failure of staff to run meeting according to agreed timings, resulting in further disadvantaging of noncommercial representatives who needed to leave on time to catch flight - meeting continued regardless and came to 'agreements' in absence of affected parties. Insistence of staff on conducting ‘straw polls’ to determine agreement of those present, despite unbalanced nature of participation. Failure of staff to communicate basic transparency requirements such as names of those invited to participate (staff has yet to respond to 11/19/12 request to name participants: http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/#comments), information about meetings before they took place, publication of documents before they were discussed.
Overall failure of staff to be neutral and transparent in its dealings with stakeholder groupings, leading to a marked bias in favour of commercial stakeholders.
############################################
############################################
WHOIS
No WHOIS info