[article] .org price cap complaints more like =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9Cspam=E2=80=9D_?=says Ombudsman

[dorothy g]

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.

best regards
Dorothy

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:07 AM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Let me know by the end of the week, if there is no objection I will draft
> up a letter.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
> On 2019-09-11 19:23, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> 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 <mkaranicolas at GMAIL.COM> <mkaranicolas at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
> 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 icann at ferdeline.com wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
> I am sharing this article for information purposes:
> org price cap complaints more like “spam” says Ombudsmanhttp://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman
> Kind regards,
> Ayden Férdeline
>
>

-- 
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190912/14fae648/attachment.htm>