Milton,
Thanks for re-focusing the discussion on the main issue of your original
post.
You wrote:
<snip>
> Please make it clear to us: are you simply cutting a political deal with
> INTA
> in order to gain their support for making your DNSO "the" DNSO? Or can you
> offer a coherent rationale for why the TM lobby--who are all
> businesses--are
> being awarded a special membership class, an award that makes them "more
> equal"
> than the individual domain name registrants, free speech advocates, and
> noncommercial organizations whose rights have been repeatedly compromised
> by
> the claims of corporate trademark holders?
>
The problem, as I see it, is the following.
In the past, the major issue in the domain name system was the allocation of
new gTLDs, and it is my own belief that one of the major opponents of this
action was the trademark lobby.
If this is true, it seems obvious to me thet ICANN will never endorse an
application that will not include this constituency. This means that, sooner
or later, the interests of the Registrar and Registries, User Groups, ISPs,
and whatever else, have to come to a negotiation with the Trademark folks.
I personally disagree with a lot of things in the INTA proposal, and rest
assured that will do my best to make my voice heard when the final draft
will be discussed. My approach is that Trademarks and Commercial interests
need not to be separate constituencies (if this means doubling the seats).
At the same time, I have to admit that giving to Registrars and Registries
together 9 seats (as in our current draft) may seem difficult to swallow by
INTA. Hence, the need not for a "political deal" but for a negotiation.
Maybe Onno's proposal is worth considering as a basis for a negotiation.
> This is a litmus test, and not only for me. You will remove your DNSO from
> consideration by a significant number of people, and guarantee strenuous,
> no-holds-barred opposition, unless this flaw is fixed.
>
What flaw? INTA has presented a proposal, and we need to see whether we can
come to a compromise. Of course, the compromise will be unacceptable if INTA
stays on its current position (but, as I said, I could not blame them if
they make the same consideration reading our proposal).
But they made a move, and are ready to jump in the discussion.
This is a position that I respect, even if I disagree on some of the points.
Regards
Roberto
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
