ICANN Ombudsman responds to IRT complaint, but after IRT released final report
ICANN Ombudsman Dr. Frank Fowlie responded to Internet Commerce Association’s complaints about Implementation Recommendation Team, a trademark-interests group that has proposed sweeping changes to domain disputes and allocation. Internet Commerce Association (ICA) calls the Ombudsman’s response “Tardy, Nonresponsive and Non-persuasive”. In a post on its web site, ICA counsel Phil Corwin found a number of faults with the Ombudsman’s response.
On June 3, 2009 — the week after the IRT released its Final Report and concluded its work – we received an official report from the Ombudsman. Not only was this response received too late to do any possible good (on the off chance that our allegations were determined to be valid by this ICANN accountability procedure) but it failed to ever grapple with our central contention — that the IRT was a “constituent bodyâ€ bound by the Bylaws. As for whether the ICANN community was provided with clear and timely notice of the opportunity to apply to be a member of the IRT, the documents offered up by the Ombudsman to prove that point actually prove the opposite.
Having read both letters, it certainly seems that the question of whether or not IRT is a constituent body was largely avoided.
My take is, that by including only like-minded trademark interests in its group, IRT will likely face an uphill battle getting buy-in to its plan. It will be interesting to see how its recommendations are received at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Sydney, as well as what ICANN does in the face of any push back.