-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1 - I am happy to support this idea. Joy On 27/03/2013 9:47 a.m., William Drake wrote: > +1 > > Get some allies > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:28 PM, [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I agree that the Council would be the appropriate filer in this >> case. As I mentioned in a different message, there seems to be a >> pattern that decisions are being made outside the GNSO policy >> processes - although that may be proven to not be the case in >> one or more of the instances we've discussed on this list. In >> any event I think it would be useful and appropriate for the >> Council to discuss this directly, and hope our Councilors can >> support this action. It seems to me also that before introducing >> the motion it may be worth investigating whether a Councilor from >> a different SG/House would be prepared to second it. >> >> Cheers Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP >> Partnerships Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW >> HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA >> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: >> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php >> >> >>>>> >> *From: * Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *To:* >> <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *Date: * 3/26/2013 3:23 >> PM *Subject: * Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing >> an ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating >> the organization's policy development process? >> >> Hi >> >> I can support the NCSG filling such a complaint, though it would >> be better for the GNSO Council to file it. >> >> Perhaps we can first introduce it as a motion for the next >> g-council meeting, and if the council decides against it, then >> we could do it independently. >> >> avri >> >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint >>> against >> the organization's senior management for violating the >> organization's policy development process by adopting staff's >> "strawman solution" which never went through proper process (or >> any process for that matter). >>> >>> The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates >> unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once >> infringed" theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that >> mark. This particular proposal was stitched together by TM >> lobbyists and staff when NCSG wasn't even in the room - because >> it was 10pm at night in LA and I had left for my flight on >> staff's assurances that no policy discussions would take place >> that evening. ALAC wasn't in the room either (although Evan & >> Alan participated remotely on the phone in the middle of their >> night). >>> >>> The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy. >>> >>> ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and >>> not an >> implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability >> to make decisions. [Although the first time staff published its >> report on the mtg's discussion of that proposal, staff's blog >> report differed from what the CEO stated to meeting participants >> and said this proposal had been characterized as an >> "implementation" decision by mtg participants. It took some >> persistence and insistence from mtg participants to correct >> staff's blog post and classify this proposal as "policy" - which >> was the truth of what the LA mtg participants had said. Finally >> staff gave-in, as I was not the only one to complain about the >> inaccurate reporting, and they changed the web-posting to >> reflect that the group - and staff - had classified this proposal >> as "policy, and not implementation" at the LA mtg. The CEO >> apologize for staff's "mistake". I'm sure it's all another >> coincidence...] >>> >>> The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN >>> could >> not adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new rights >> (and ICANN isn't supposed to creating new rights). >>> >>> The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the >> particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its >> head). How is anyone going to criticize a company or product >> that was "found to abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in >> an entirely unrelated circumstance? This proposal actually >> thumbs its nose at trademark law because trademark law recognizes >> that "once infringed" does not create some magical new category >> of rights that is allowed to trample on the expression rights of >> all the innocent and lawful uses of a word (that resembles a >> trademark). But I'll save the complaints about how nonsensical >> the substance of this proposal is for another email. This email >> is just about the insanity of ICANN senior staff attempting to >> usurp the bottom-up policy development process to appease >> powerful political interests. >>> >>> If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated >> policies, the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no? >>> >>> Best, 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 >>> <http://www.ipjustice.org/> e: >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> >>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRUhj4AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1RcIAL+/1U69GY6VyFvxK1HCDNR1 YzJZgRDYvNLl2B8f8koyvzutRbEEoGUBsDqyU42ZEoMX9rw/XSGMuC5zKFKTZ6Yp QL7/OXJNKW24rqUb4SrXf763ilONgSzZdWud41a5yPb7PA/y/N0M0+wZmpntASK+ ukmWJpV46Qg7C2Z8tk1fY+uLkBM9X6OAPUQaYItr52Yi5rn6YSz2ofPp8xi9B7r6 oR6qQnXcFvcbGmilZpc/gMoFf8ZhqjfthDnlbWFXkCxFO4npXFky8espPD3rbMvE Cay+ao9oq7W9J7vF9A7ss+Zw4FjP+7bGHg3QYUS92Kl3y6KOD8j052rC7PLEZU8= =1KI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----