>> 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