<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Dear all, First, thank you Ayden for sharing the information. Is the ombudsman trying to tell us that the concerns are not real? I support Stephanie's position. Farzaneh we are not trying to reform the ombudsman's office but the price cap on .org is such a serious matter that in my view Stephanie's position makes sense. The whole situation does raise credibility issues with regard to the office and the individual occupying that office. Certainly if this was a city level ombuds person they may have had to resign. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">best regards</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Dorothy</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:07 AM Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I think that the matter merits a response from us. Civil society functions in broad coalitions and does a lot of its work through petitions and sign on campaigns. To dismiss a form letter is therefore unacceptable
for these reasons; to interpret a signature on a form letter as spam is in my view at least demonstrating a failure to understand how public campaigns actually work. The onus is on us, as users of this technique, to correct this assertion.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">If our members support this opinion, I will draft up a letter to send to the Board. The Ombudsman is of course entirely entitled to his opinion and response, but we should explain to the Board how we feel about
the matter. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Let me know by the end of the week, if there is no objection I will draft up a letter.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Kind regards, <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">NCSG Chair</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-09-11 19:23, Ayden Férdeline wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-quote-pre">Thanks Michael, I agree that the optics here are poor - particularly given this does seem inconsistent with how ICANN has previously treated coordinated submissions. Back in 2017, when numerous intellectual property interests were sending in identical, form letters regarding the importance of maintaining open-ended unaccountable Whois, I didn't see these being disregarded as being spam submissions. Nor should they have been, as while the messaging was identical, the sentiments were sincerely held. I hope that the Ombudsman might reconsider his stance on this matter.
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 12 September 2019 01:13, Michael Karanicolas <a class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mkaranicolas@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank"><mkaranicolas@GMAIL.COM></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-quote-pre">Ugh. This is a really bad look for the Ombudsman. These kinds of
coordinated campaigns are absolutely standard practice for civil
society. Open Media, for example, does this all the time in public
comment periods, providing their network with a list of "talking
points" and a link, and encouraging them to submit things on these
lines. So long as these are actual people or organizations that are
submitting the comments (as opposed to bots) - it's 100% legitimate.
There's been no indication that the comments here were automated, or
that there was anything fishy about the organizations submitting the
comments.
Even putting aside his ultimate recommendation to dismiss the
complaint, this is a very disappointing and narrow-minded stance for
the Ombudsman to take.
Best,
Michael Karanicolas
Wikimedia Fellow
Yale Law School
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:22 PM Ayden Férdeline <a class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank">icann@ferdeline.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-quote-pre">Dear all,
I am sharing this article for information purposes:
org price cap complaints more like “spam” says Ombudsman
<a class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail-m_4164780628373577882moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman" target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman</a>
Kind regards,
Ayden Férdeline
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_7965337762443441513gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Dorothy Gordon</div></div>