Why does the trademark constitutiency need a counterbalance? They are one
of several constitutiencies that will have an uncertain amount of influence
in selecting three board members out of a nineteen board member. I would
have thought built-in minority status would have been a sufficient
counter-balance.
Have you proposed counter-balances to each constituiency? And then
counter-balances to all of those counter-balances?
>Now you're just playing with words. Opposite, schmopposite. I am talking about
>political constituencies, groupings of people with more or less uniform
>interests in
>specific outcomes or policies. In that sense, a "free expression"
>constituency, in the
>context of domain name trademark disputes, is an important and justifiable
>counterbalance to a "trademark" constituency. When NSI decides that
>peta.org must be
>suspended because it violates the trademark of PETA, it is deciding that PETA's
>trademark rights are more important than peta.org's desire to satirize
>PETA. A truly
>representative DNSO should represent both points of view.
>
>--MM
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> So what? That doesn't mean that a "free expression" constituency is
>> in any meaningful sense an "opposite" to a TM constituency.
>>
>> --
>> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
>--
>M I L T O N M U E L L E R S Y R A C U S E U N I V E R S I T Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>School of Information Studies http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
