Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:The problem with this logic is that the fact that there are any>For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
>the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in which
>trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a mark.My personal view is that constituencies are defined by the general
interest (i.e. the implications of trademarks and other intellectual
property on the internet) not by a more narrow political position (i.e.
trademark owners should have first right on any domain name that bears
their mark). Ying and yang coexist in the same constituency.
PRE-DEFINED constituencies is in stark contrast to the White paper
and the ICANN's own Bylaws. In addition the additional fact
that ANY DNSO that is formed must have the approval of the
Membership organization was also violated as well in that the
ICANN membership is yet to exist...
Present where? Her on the net? I don't think so.I think this is the feeling of most who were present, and I seriously
doubt that the ICANN Board will approve a constituency that is not open
to those on all sides of a particular debate.
Regards,-- Bret
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
