Is there any interest in supporting this -- or at least understanding the issues better? This could be seen as a significan A&T issue. Regardless of one's view of the merits of the trandmark claims mechanism, the lack of transparency in developing this serious implementation issue is potentially a serious point of concern. - Evan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: 9 September 2013 14:51 Subject: NCSG Appeal of ICANN Secrecy Claim Over Information Shaping ICANN Staff Policy Decision to Create New Rights for Trademark Holders in DNS To: NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu With great thanks to NCSG member Ed Morris, NCSG filed an appeal (attached) of ICANN staff's decision to not release any new information to NCSG in response to our DIDP request for information about staff's decision to adopt a policy creating new rights for trademark holders in the DNS. The DIDP process is supposed be be part of ICANN's "accountability" process (sort of like a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information) intended to ensure transparency in the development of public policies. But if staff can just blow those DIDP requests off too and claim the info is either secret or too burdensome to release, ICANN's claim of "accountability and transparency" is nothing more than self-serving PR that lacks any basis in reality. NCSG's appeal is attached and I'm keeping track of the filings in this tragedy here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/ICANN+Unaccountability *Is ICANN Accountable, Transparent, and "Bottom-Up" in its Governance?* - *NCSG Reconsideration Request of ICANN staff's decision to impose the "trademark + 50" policy for new GTLDS <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/request-ncsg-19apr13-en.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1377793786000>(Request 13-3 on 19 April 2013)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/request-ncsg-19apr...> * - Attachments to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/request-ncsg-19apr...> - ICANN's 1st Response (what ICANN's lawyers hoped they could get away with)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/recommendation-ncs...> 16 May 2013 - NCSG Letter to Board of Directors Regarding ICANN's 1st Response <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2013-06-17-NCSG-Request-...> 17 June 2013 - GNSO Council discussion on impact of 1st response on bottom-up multi-stakeholder model of governance<https://soundcloud.com/ip_justice/icann-gnso-debate-on-bgc> 13 June 2013 - ICANN's 2nd Response (revised response following community-wide outrage to 1st response)<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/recommendation-ncs...> 25 June 2013 - ICANN Board New GTLD Program Committee Approves 2nd Response<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-...> 2 July 2013 - *NCSG DIDP request for info surrounding ICANN staff's decision to create new rights for large trademark holders after Guidebook published<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/ncsg-request-24jul...> * 24 July 2013 - ICANN "Response"<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/ncsg-response-24au...> 24 August 2013 - NCSG Appeal of ICANN's secrecy claims over most information surrounding ICANN staff's decision to create new rights for trademark holders in DNS<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/NCSG+RECONSIDERATI...> 8 September 2013 -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56