Milton Mueller wrote:
>Sorry, Brett. No set of constituencies that provides a special place for
>"trademark interests" and does not ALSO include a special, reserved place for
>"free expression/public interest interests" is not acceptable. I don't care
>what political deals you think it is necessary to cut, protecting trademarks
>is no more important than protecting the right of individuals, organizations,
>and small businesses to make legitimate use of names that certain trademark
>owners happen to think belong to them. There must be a balance. I won't
>accept your proposal as is and I urge all other members of ORSC and BWG and
>anyone else who cares about principle not to do so.
What do you think about Mikki's suggested language? Doesn't that solve
the trademark part, making it clear that both sides to this debate have a
place?
>And no, that general grab-bag of "non-commercial interests" is in no way an
>acceptable substitute for a public interest membership component.
What's a better formulation that makes it clear that this group includes
the public interest?
>It's an easy problem to fix. Please fix it.
What language do you suggest?
