On 05-Feb-99 Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director wrote:
>
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>> > 6. TRADEMARK AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS: entities who are
>> > interested in the protection of trademarks or intellectual property rights
>> > with respect to domain names.
>>
>> This wording doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to make it clear that
>> associations which are advocates of non-trademark holding domain name
>> holders
>> qualify for inclusion here, which was the point of Mikki's comment, which I
>> fully endorse.
>
> I guess I'm confused as to the purpose of the edits then. :(
>
> Isn't the purpose of a constituency to define a group of similar interests?
> The idea of THIS constituency was for those who are particularly interested
> in how their trademarks and copyrights are going to be infringed upon. Its a
> compromise to the trademark interests, as they ARE, in fact, powerful
> interests with a lot of dollars to spend, and, as domains are part of one's
> branding strategy (and therefore, can be said to infringe on trademarks and
> copyrights if used in certain manners in certain countries), they were
> getting their say here.
>
> Would not those that advocate the NON-trademark holding domain name holders
> fit into one or more of the OTHER constituencies? Or should we add one for
> them in particular?
>
>> This permits non-trademark domain name holders to be respresented in more
>> than
>> one constituency, like the trademark holders are now, and makes a much more
>> balanced and fair approach.
>
> I'm confused. How are the trademark holders in more than one constituency in
> the model in this draft? The thought was that public interest groups, etc.,
> would go into the non-profit/noncommercial constituency, but those with
> trademark/intellectual property interests would have their constituency, as
> well...
>
> I guess my confusion is that I'm interpreting the idea that you are putting
> forth as the equivalent of saying "you need to have some Democrats in the
> Republican party" (sorry for those of you not U.S. based for that analogy,
> but its the first one that comes to mind). Or am I missing something?
>
The simple fact is that trademark interests are represented in at least 2 if
not 3 constituencies, while non-trademark holders have the option of being "at
large" OR business/commercial. Trademark interests get in on the
business/commercial, and Trademark interests, thus increasing their influence.
By having a generic "Intellectual Property" as Mikki proposed, it balances this
constituency.
I REALLY object to the reasoning in your email that suggests we let them have a
dominate position than non-trademark holding domain name holders (who make up
the VAST majority of domain name holders) simply on the basis that they have
lots of money. If that is the only reason, then I say kill the entire idea
now, on PRINCIPLE. If we are catering to nothing but their money, we are
committing a GROSS error in ethics and the responsibility we have to make sure
the rights of ALL stakeholders are EQUALLY and FAIRLY protected.
In the Business/Commercial constituency you will have plenty of people with
MUCH varied views on ecommerce and the role of DNS, etc. Why should we not
have a "Intellectual Property" constituency the also properly reflects the
vastly differing views on that subject?
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04-Feb-99
Time: 23:19:56
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
