These kinds of comments have just about dissuaded me from any further comments on the
DNSO
proposals. It appears that while the more reasonable members of dnso.org were sincerely
soliciting comment, it is evident that Crispin, Crocker, and others have utterly no
intention of making any substantive changes. I am particularly upset by the
manipulative
character of the exchange quoted below.
First, in an attempt to stem criticism of a special class of membership for the
trademark
special interest group, Crispin says its "perfectly reasonable" to create a
counterbalancing constituency. I then call his bluff and ask him to do it. Suddenly,
beeping noises emanate and he backs off. Suddenly, adding a new constituency is a
horribly
difficult, "gerrymandering" process that simply can't be done. (the fact that the
current
classification of members also constitutes a representation system gerrymandered to
suit
the interests of TM holders.
Given this kind of response, why should anyone waste their time trying to convince
dnso.org to make any substantive changes?
The only response is to create an alternative dnso proposal and submit it to ICANN
independently. I apologize to all who I urged to get involved in this travesty.
--MM
Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Unbelievably disingenuous. If you take the idea seriously, add that constituency to
> > your draft NOW. All it takes is a few strokes of the pen.
>
> Such an action would be totally irresponsible, under the
> circumstances. It doesn't take a few strokes of the pen, it takes
> consensus, or at least a strong majority, before such a thing can be
> contemplated. Let me explain a bit further, since you seem somewhat
> oblivious: Adding a new constituency is a non-trivial matter because
> it changes representation patterns. I am in no position to
> unilaterally gerrymander those through a casual stroke of the pen.
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
