Oh no! As I plugged that phrase into Google, I was hoping against hope it didn't mean 'abandon hope, all ye who enter'. Oh well. If we can't rely on hope, then bloody-mindedness will have to suffice. Maria On 3 December 2012 15:22, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hope? > > Isn't there a sign at the gates of ICANN: Lasciate ogne speranza, voi > ch'intrate > > avri > > > > > On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:42, Maria Farrell wrote: > > > Thanks, Alain. > > > > I've never used the process before, but thought it best to exhaust all > the available options. I can't say I'm full of hope for the outcome, given > most of the damage is already done on this particular issue. But taking > action may raise the perceived costs of routing around the policy process > in the future. Or maybe not, we'll see! > > > > All the best,m > > > > On 2 December 2012 15:57, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Dear Maria, > > > > Thanks for sharing. > > > > In my short time in ICANN I have used the Ombudsman's road twice and > find the process arduous, time consuming and unclear in times of > resolution. It seems in practice to be based on a dominant philosophy of > facilitating mitigation, so if one party is stubborn and resists > mitigation, the process fizzles out. When time is of the essence, as it is > most of the times, issues do not get resolved via the Ombudsman.That is my > personal opinion. > > > > Alain > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > www.schulich.yorku.ca > > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > www.gkpfoundation.org > > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > > Skype: alain.berranger > > > > > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ > > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire > ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le > destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au > destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement > interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le > reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou > si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer > sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de > votre coopération. > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive > use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by > anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person > responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited > to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, > in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this > e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > >