Can anybody tell me how to get off this mailing list? I am not active, this kind of activity is way over my head, I have nothing to contribute. Keep up the good work fighting for our Freedom!! EC Carolan > Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:30:45 -0800 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN staff proposal for further concessions to IPC-BC > To: [log in to unmask] > > Quick comment: I think the two views here may not be irreconcilable. > > One can applaud the prevention of worse harm while still deploring the ad > hoc nature of the process. I assume the procedural objection would not > undermine the ameliorated result per se? (That is, it would not cause the > result to revert to a worse outcome.) > > One can participate in a process on pragmatic terms without "legitimizing" > the process overall. "Under protest" and such things. I do think it's > worth clarifying this stance, officially and formally. > > So Kathy: thank you for your efforts to hold back the tides. We can even > thank Fadi for being personally even-handed, taking your account at face > value. But we can still raise a stink about "ad hoc creep" and point out > that this sort of "crisis management" is not sustainable in the long run > if ICANN expects to retain some modicum of legitimate authority as an > institution. > > Avri: I'm with you and Robin et al. on objecting to ad hoc processes being > used as a common method for conducting policy at ICANN. Feels kind of > like Morsi in Egypt. That said, it was probably better that Kathy > participated and prevented a worse outcome, in case this outcome in fact > does become the de facto policy, rather than not have a NC representative > involved. The alternative would be to have a worse outcome. > > The only way a worse outcome could be better is if it pours more fuel on > the fire of illegitimacy, but that's a risky gamble. I'm not sure that > allowing an outrageous outcome would give us enough additional leverage to > delegitimize the process to throw out the result. And if the worse result > were to stand, then we're screwed worse. > > I think we should go ahead and voice strong objection to the ad hoc > process. But that does not invalidate Kathy's efforts, which I think were > very useful nevertheless. We need not allow her participation to be > interpreted as legitimizing the process, even on a "default" or "implicit" > or "de facto" basis, if we come out formally with a sharp protest. > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and > do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > On Mon, December 3, 2012 6:38 am, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I disagree that we all in the fact that we all do it. They are the > > specialists in multiple bites of the apple. We tend to make deals and > > stick to them. It is nice that you want to be balanced an all, but there > > is no balance her. We even tend to still to deals that get made that we > > disagreed with. I guess we are just chumps. but I reject this notion > > that we are all the same and we all do the same. that is just not the > > case. > > > > So they only got a little bit extra on this pass. Wait till the next > > pass, they will get more. Of course they will stand a good chance of > > getting the rest after their side papers the comment period and we write > > one of two considered messages. > > > > It is good the conference was mostly technical since it was supposed to be > > 100% technical. > > > > And now people are saying we should not be critical of ICANN at this > > critical time. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Dec 2012, at 17:39, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > > >> There is another way to look at it, Alain and All, > >> > >> Fadi and ICANN needed to finalize the contracts re: creation of the > >> Trademark Clearinghouse and related services. In particular, ICANN > >> decided that IBM would offer the Registry/Registrar "query services" for > >> the "Trademark Claims" process -- that's basically the query of whether > >> a certain string of letters is registered as a trademark in the > >> Trademark Clearinghouse (commonly now called "the TMCH") and then > >> receive the information that will be passed onto registrants -- namely > >> the Trademark, Trademark Holder, Country of Registration, Class of > >> Registration, Description of Goods and Services. > >> > >> It was decided that Deloitte will be the first company to handle the > >> "validation process" of the TMCH. That's the whole intake process on > >> whether a trademark is valid, whether it is property certified, and in > >> certain cases, whether there is proof of use (for those countries which > >> don't require use before registration). Other companies may also > >> contract with ICANN to offer these services in the future - Deloitte is > >> the test or pilot of the system. It, in turn, provides and receives data > >> from IBM and the TMCH system. > >> > >> Fadi was very smart: he negotiated these contracts so that the ICANN > >> owns the data, not the service providers, and so that ICANN can audit > >> and review closely. > >> > >> So in this important time, as the specifications were being finalized, > >> the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies brought some > >> additional requests. Rather than just dealing with them behind closed > >> doors (which is what the IPC/BC wanted), Fadi quickly put together a > >> diverse group. Completely balanced, no, but he was listening very, very > >> carefully to all sides (particularly ours). > >> > >> Fadi let the IPC/BC present, and we responded. What emerged was an > >> expansion, to some extent, of existing Rights Protection Mechanisms, but > >> not the dramatic new RPMs the IPC/BC wanted (and have always wanted). We > >> blocked the call for blocking one more time (as we have done since it > >> was first introduced in 2008). > >> > >> If you and others can see it clear to giving some time in this busy > >> period to write comments, it would be a good idea to oppose the TM+50, > >> the idea of going past "exact matches" to 50 variations of a Trademark, > >> that would be a good idea. The IRT and STI, as Mary has pointed out, > >> wanted exact matches. 50+ variations can go way beyond existing > >> trademarks into entirely new words. that's far beyond trademark > >> protection, and invades other's legitimate uses. > >> > >> But All, the vast majority of the meeting was about implementation -- > >> and getting to final specs and a final contract with IBM and Deloitte. > >> Please read the Strawman and respond. But there's nothing evil here. > >> Constituencies advocate for their interests -- we do and they do. > >> If you have questions, please let me know. > >> I lived on the phone for these meetings 3 of the 4 days. > >> Best, > >> Kathy > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi Alain, > >>> > >>> They tried that route, but the consensus did not go their way. Instead > >>> of getting required RPMs they got the recommendation that every new > >>> gTLD should use a RPM and they produced a nice volume of possible RPMs > >>> that the applications could, and should, use voluntarily. This was the > >>> first compromise they agreed to when they voted in favor of the new > >>> gTLD program. > >>> > >>> Little did we know at the time that compromise was just a stepping > >>> stone to future victory. > >>> > >>> So ever since they have been trying and trying and trying: IRT, STI, > >>> Fadi's strawman > >>> > >>> And each time they try, they get a little close to what they want. > >>> > >>> Ignoring the multistakeholder process and using each compromise as a > >>> booster for the next assault is a tried & true IPC/BC method that has > >>> worked well at ICANN. And thus they have no reason to stop using that > >>> technique. Fadi is just the latest attack vector. > >>> > >>> We keep going this way, and IPC/BC will own our first born children, or > >>> at least the names we give them. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> On 2 Dec 2012, at 20:14, Alain Berranger wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks Robin. Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> Is it not the essence of a strawman solution to be imperfect and to be > >>>> subjected to further testing, consultations and brain-storming? > >>>> > >>>> Can we ask IPC/BC and/or ICANN staff why a strawman solution is chosen > >>>> as opposed to a Working Group or a PDP or whatever else ICANN uses to > >>>> establish policies? Maybe I should know the answer but I don't. I may > >>>> only speculate that time is of the essence for commercial interests > >>>> and that the proposed strawman solution suits their purposes. > >>>> > >>>> Can any insights be shared from the IP lawyers in NCSG or anyone else > >>>> in the know? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, Alain > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> Dear All: > >>>> > >>>> ICANN has released its proposed strawman solution to give further > >>>> concessions to the IPC-BC. > >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm > >>>> > >>>> ICANN presents this "solution" like it is the output of a community > >>>> process and consensus, but it is really just a bunch of executive > >>>> decisions based one-sided discussions, over the objections of many in > >>>> the community. > >>>> > >>>> Really disappointing how staff is undermining ICANN's bottom-up > >>>> multi-stakeholder policy process at exactly the time it should be > >>>> strengthening it. > >>>> > >>>> 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] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >