[ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes

[Roberto Gaetano]

Mikki,

You wrote:

> Since ICANN is supposed to be dealing with technical issues, and since the
> trademark lobby has brought up no technical issues with the addition of
> new
> gTLDs, and since they have nothing to do with the technical issues of new
> gTLDs, I do not believe that they should have any type of preferred
> position.
> 
Maybe ICANN is supposed to be dealing with technical issues, but the SOs
have for sure to deal with policy issues, because their mission is to advise
ICANN on policy.
In this respect, I find appropriate that there's a voice for the Trademark
interests.
What we can debate is the "volume" of the voice. Of course, it has to be
balanced with all other voices.

Also, back to the topic of influencing INTA's position, is there any action
by INTA Members that disagree with the document to put pressure to INTA to
change it?

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____________________________________________