On Sun, Jan 03, 1999 at 06:56:01PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Roberto and anyone else from DNSO who is listening:
>
>You are correct that the opposition of TM interests has been a key factor
>holding up the creation of new gTLDs. You are not correct, I believe, in then
>jumping to the conclusion that TM interests must be given privileged membership
>status in a DNSO.
This is not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect". It is a matter of
"consensus". The fact is that the participants of the Barcelona
meeting came up with a list of constituencies that they thought
clearly needed representation; that was a consensus item; there were
no trademark representatives at that meeting pushing them into it;
the Monterrey meeting reinforced that consensus.
To be a bit more precise, there was disagreement on how
representation should be allocated among the various constituencies,
but there was no significant disagreement with the idea that
trademark interests were a valid constituency.
>Why not create 3 seats for a special category of members called "domain name
>holders who have been abused by overly aggressive trademark owners"?
The document clearly indicates that the constituencies indicated are
an initial set, and that procedures will be developed for creating
new constituencies, changing the charters of existing constituencies,
deleting constituencies that are not relevant, and (implicitly)
adjusting the representation. [Political reality is, of course, that
the number will simply grow over time.]
So, it would be perfectly reasonable to creat the constituency you
describe. Mike Heltzer, the person that I understand did most of the
drafting of the INTA document, has suggested to me in private email
that there should be a "Free speech and Consumer Interests"
constituency, which I think would be a good idea.
[It might be better to change the name from "constituencies" to
"special interest groups" -- "SIG" would be easier to type, and it
is suggestive of the SIGS that exist in professional organizations
-- eg "SIGGRAPH", the ACM Special Interest Group for Graphics.]
Over time I imagine be a couple dozen "constituencies".
[...]
>Do you understand the point I am making? It is not that TM holders shouldn't
>participate, be listened to, or be protected. It is that membership classes must
>not be structured to reflect particular policy positions.
Of course we understand your point -- it is, shall we say, not deep.
The following point isn't deep, either, but it's not theoretical,
it's a fact you need to understand:
The majority of entities involved *do want* membership classes
structured to reflect constituencies.
I don't have a particular ax to grind here -- if there is a clear
and substantial move away from a constituency basis, then it will
happen. I don't see such a move, however.
Personally, I don't think it matters too much from a practical point
of view, as long as the number of special interests is fairly large,
and no one of them has obvious control. In the current application
the registry/registrar block is the problem, not the TM interests --
the three votes the TM interests have is simply not enough for them
to impose their will on anyone.
[...]
>I understand the risks and problems associated with telling TM interests this
>fact. They have decided they have a right to guaranteed representation.
In fact, whatever they decided has nothing to do with it -- the
constituency structure was a consensus item before they were ever
involved. So all your histrionics about the TM lobby are completely
misplaced.
> They
> want to turn the DNSO and ICANN into international regulatory agencies that
> police trademarks in a more efficient, centralized way than the normal legal
> channels.
If that happens it will happen. The mandate for ICANN involvement in
TM issues comes from the USG, and in particular, the WIPO process
will be definitive.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
