This is a correct and timely comment by M. Mueller, in my opinion. I have
been making the same point to the DNSOmyself, and I posted a preliminary
critique of the INTA's proposal on this and the [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists. I
will be posting a full critique along these lines later today or tomorrow.
FYI, the INTA proposal was never presented at a DNSO meeting, and the
participants in the DNSO never had the opportunity to discuss it and vote on
its proposed changes to the application, at least not at a meeting. Now, the
DNSO is being pressured by time constraints into amalgamating the INTA
proposal with its own. This procedure is, in my opinion, and in agreement
with M. Mueller's comment, bad for the DNSO and should not be allowed to
proceed. IFWP participants who object to it should make their feelings felt
by commenting to the DNSO.
Milton Mueller a �crit:
>
> I hope I am not the only one who is aware of, and concerned about, the
> blatant
> special interest power grab that makes up a major part of the INTA
> proposal for a
> domain name supporting organization.
>
> (See http://www.dnso.org/docs/dnso-draft-inta-bylaws.html)
>
> The INTA proposal creates special membership classes. Surprise,
> surprise, one of
> those special classes is "trademark and anticounterfeiting Interests."
>
> Now, I do recognize that trademark interests form a legitimate part of
> the policy
> debate surrounding domain names. But any attempt to grant the
> representatives of those
> views special representation is illegitimate. One could just as well
> claim
> that advocates of freedom of expression should also have special
> representation.
> One could, by the same logic, claim that advocates of "family values"
> should also be represented. This is not a frivolous analogy--domain
> name policy
> impacts freedom of expression and the minds of children on the
> Internet just as much
> as, if not more than, it affects trademark interests. The same
> argument could be made
> about privacy advocates, and their opponents.
>
> The point is that the membership classes of the DNSO must not be
> turned into a political
> arena where the advocates of particular viewpoints attempt to stack
> the deck in their
> own favor.
>
> Trademark owners are businesses. Most membership class proposals,
> including the INTA proposal, contain a classification for businesses.
> Trademark holders are also
> users of the Internet. All proposals contain a classification that
> would be open to
> users. Legitimate concerns of trademark owners can be represented
> through those membership classes.
>
> Anyone with a disinterested concern for the long-term stability and
> justice of
> ICANN and its SOs must reject the INTA proposal, and any similar
> attempt to
> structure membership proposals in ways designed to grant a short-term
> political
> advantage to a particular policy position.
>
> --Milton Mueller
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
