Dan,
The difficulty I have in answering to your message, is that I agree
completely with what you say.
I will try, nevertheless, because I think that we are hitting one of the key
points of the domain naming issues.
You have clearly expressed your feelings in favour of "the mere users of the
words" in a way that has my full support, but nevertheless disagreement on
the conclusion.
In my view of things, we don't have to fight for keeping the Trademark
interests outside the doors, but we have to fight to have both the Trademark
interests and the "normal user" (sorry, but I can't find a better word for
it) interests onboard.
But my understanding is that the "general user" constituency was sufficient
for this purpose. If this is not the case, couldn't we work on that (i.e.
how to ensure proper representation of the "normal user")? You know I am not
hot on flat individual membership. Isn't it possible to increase the weight
of the User constituency in a different way.
Also, let me come back to what is the same subject over and over.
In Monterrey, there was very little presence of the "general users". In
factr, I believe that only Michael Sondow presented himself as member of
that constituency.
Wouldn't it be wise for all of you to try to steer the boat in a direction
that you may like better than the current one? Wouldn't it be worthed to
give it a try, and participate to the open DNSO list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])?
We need a final wrap-up before presenting the application. Wouldn't it be
possible to have some of you, at least as "observers", if you don't want to
take any committment? In any case we will have to join forces at some point
in time, we may well give ourselves a head start.
Regards
Roberto
Original message from Dan:
> Roberto,
>
> Karl, myself, Mikki, Carl Oppedahl and many others have been making a
> 'business case' for this for several years now.
>
> DNRC exists as an organization because there was a case for it. This
> is not a case of defining classes like 'amateur sports teams' just to
> make a seeminly rediculous comparison to trademark interests. We are
> talking about words here. Words in multiple languages. Trademarks
> are a specific instance where certain words have been granted special
> status. That special status has been carefully enshrined and limited
> in statute and caselaw. The key word is 'limited'. A trademark
> comes with explicit and implicit limitations. It doesn't mean you
> 'own' the word, except in a few limited exceptions. The recent
> 'Pokey' case illustrates my point. It was a rediculous situation for
> all to be in, especially the owners of the mark. It was in fact bad
> for their business. Adverse publicity is bad for business. On the
> other side of the coin, if mere users of the words (as opposed to mark
> holders) are not represented, the abuses (and no one can deny there
> are abuses on both sides) will make a nice raison d'etre for
> legislation.
>
> Mark holders want to be at the table because existing law doesn't give
> them enough of what they want and they can't reasonably expect to get
> legislative changes. Stack the deck in the direction of mark holders
> and the little guys 'n gals will petition their congresscritters,
> lawsuits will be launched with great publicity, Commerce deptartment
> will look at the mess and come to the conclusion that "No, we can't
> hand over this mess to ICANN/DNSO quite yet." So yes, it is quite
> easy to make a business case for bringing other users of words to the
> table. It is in your interest. No, the others don't have as much
> money and lobbying clout as the trademark interestes. But as ORSC and
> BWG demonstrated, you don't need to have large bags of money and
> lobbying clout to have an impact. Just good ideas.
>
>
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin
> Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
