Hi, I never meant to degrade Robin's or Kathy's efforts in the meetings. I think that in another comment on this topic I actually said that I appreciate the efforts. Might have even called them heroic or some such. I disagreed with her post analysis of it, not her holding back the tide. I disagreed with her saying we were all alike in trying to get multiple bites of the apple. I think your outline of how a comment could be constructed is good - though I would prefer to avoid complimenting Fadi in the process. When he does something good, like his talk yesterday at the WCIt, I compliment him. but when he creates ad-hoc process that goes around the PDP, I think we should avoid the compliments.. avri On 4 Dec 2012, at 01:30, Dan Krimm wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>