Thank you, Ed. I believe you are right and we should also consider the Request For Reconsideration, although given ICANN is going forward with new gtlds in a few months and companies are now building the specs and requirements ICANN is stating now, I wonder if it would be too late on a practical standpoint. Although it certainly would be appropriate on a principled level to have the examination of the issue, even if only after the fact. Thanks again, Robin On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > This is a bit of a line in the sand issue for me, both in terms of > policy and process. To the extent those of us lower in the food > chain, at the Constituency level, can support and help in this > effort please be so kind as to reach out and let me know. I fully > support as many efforts to get this matter on the table for review > as we can jointly muster. > > I have a question for those who have been involved in this process > longer than I: Are we at the stage, is this is the sort of action, > for which we can file an an Article IV (2) reconsideration request? > It certainly involves a staff action that we hold contradicts > established ICANN policy that adversely affects each and every one > of us. > > Thanks for the clarification and, also, for your leadership on > this matter Robin. > > > Ed Morris > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > Thanks, Avri. I do believe the GNSO Council should file a > complaint against staff for this. I'm wondering if there should > be at least 2 separate and different complaints filed. One from > the GNSO Council on how its role and the GNSO Policy Development > Process (as stated by ICANN) was entirely circumvented and > disregarded by senior staff in the adoption of its strawman. An > NCSG complaint could focus on the inequality of participation > afforded to NCSG at the LA meeting where staff and the TM lobbyists > cooked this up. Remember, the CEO said in plain unequivocal terms > that NCSG would not be allowed participate at the same level as CSG > at that meeting. It was 14 CSG to 2 NCSG who were allowed to > participate (and of the 2 NCSG reps, I was on my flight back home > and Kathy was on the phone in the middle of the night having > difficulty getting the floor from the in-room meeting participants, > who were drinking beer and wine for 3+ hours.) Maria filed a > complaint on the inequality issue previously, but NCSG as a group > did not. Now that staff said it would implement the policies > cooked up at this ad-hoc LA meeting at which NCSG was expressly > discriminated against, the time has come for NCSG to file its > complaint as a group. > > Robin > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> 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 e: [log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > 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] > > > > 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]