Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC,
and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myself are
very real, non theoretical entities. We have participated actively in the
process. We are not ghosts or figments of your imagination. We have put
forward specific, real proposals: to have individual memberships or, if that
is not possible, to at least balance the constituencies. Why hasn't this
happened?
The answer to the "why not" is simple: The TM interests have more time and
money to spend on this, and they have courted (and been courted by) other key
participants in the dnso process to form an alliance which guarantees each
other representation while excluding others who might challenge or threaten
their dominance. Political relationships can indeed be "complicated," but as
someone who studies them for a living I can tell you that this one is not
complicated at all.
--MM
Kent Crispin wrote:
> > For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
> This is a metaphysical claim. It has no relation to reality. The
> reality is that political relationships are very much more
> complicated.
> That's because they are theoretical constructs, not realities. It's
> entertaining to play with theoretical constructs -- I do it all the
> time myself -- but at some point you have to return to the
> engineering point of view, and work with the actual material
> available.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
