At 07:17 PM 1/3/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.
You're leaning fairly hard on this Barcelona consensus. Considering that
not all of us could attend on such short notice that consensus is more of a
guide than a real consensus. It only reflected the folks that were there.
Had I attended, for example, I would have definitly spoken against it.
>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.
Stakeholder/cosntituencey does NOT necessarily equate to a BoD seat.
>>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.]
Why is there a need to formally charter every SIG, much less give them a
special vote?
>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.
I disagree, those issues should be woven into the fabric of both the ICANN
and the DNSO. They are fundimental issues that trancend all other issues.
>[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.
This doesn't make it something we can/should do. They want their special
classes in order to control/propogate their special agend and
dis-enfranchise some others, generally their opposition. I'd rather see a
large informal free-for-all that will wash clean in the vote. I'm coming
more around to Karl's way of thinking on this. If we can't satisfy ALL
possible constituencies then let's not even try. Satisfy NONE and be done
with it. Both extremes are equality personified. Any compromise here is
bound to be unfair.
>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.
So sez you now. However, it will give them an already too powerful voice
that they do not deserve. Besides, their track record says that they won't
stick to that. I'd definitely be looking for ulterior agendii, from that camp.
>>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.
For one, they are not histrionics and they are not mis-placed. One only
needs to look into the track-record, for the TM faction, to see the true
picture. They are seeking supralegal rights that they can not get any other
way, becasue national legislatures will not give it to them. They think
that ICANN/*SO can. I think it is wrong to give them this forum at all,
under any circumstances. What do they bring to the party that we don't
already have?
>> 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.
This is where we definitely part company. We are polar opposites here. It
is the absolute worst thing that can happen to the DNSO, or ICANN. Nowhere
in the White Paper does it say that *any* part of ICANN shall become the TM
police.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
-- Thomas Jefferson
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
