Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director wrote:
> Isn't the purpose of a constituency to define a group of similar interests?
Yes. Although I support theintent of Mikki's suggestion, it makes no sense to define
a special constituency that embraces two distinct interests who are vritually at war
with each other (TM name-hijackers and domain name registrants who get in their
way.) The logical thing to do is have an
> 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?
You should add one for them, yes. That is what I suggested yesterday. But of course,
that starts to get ridiculous to have special constituencies for one side of an
issue and another for the other side. That is why it has never made sense to have a
special constituency relating the the TM issue at all. You have a business/ecommerce
constituency. TM holders are represented in there. You have a user constituency.
Others are represented in there. There is no need for anything more specific, except
as an illegitimate attempt to give a special political bone to the TM interests in
order to appease them.--MM
