At 05:48 PM 3/5/99 +0000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>Nonesense. The DNSO has presumed and empowered constituencies for
>trademark owners yet ignorred the fact that there are those who use names
>in those vast areas in which trademarks do not run.
Considering which "constituencies" to attend to can be done in two, very
different ways.
One is academically and mathematically pure, along the likes of Karl A's
logic, in which someone tries to make an exhaustive list of every aspect of
the topic that might engender debate, where "debate" defines (at least) two
sides and therefore (at least) two constituencies. This approach is
certain to fail, for a large number of reasons, but makes for good debating
technique.
The other approach is to pay attention to constituencies that self-form,
develop a substantial membership, and start lobbying for recognition. In
other words, they do the work necessary to show that they are a real --
rather than theoretical -- force for the current topic.
This, of course, is far more practical in spite of being mathematically impure.
So, when criticizing ICANN, or whoever, for not paying adequate attention
to a given constituency, please include some information about the extent
to which that constituency organized for this topic and how it went about
lobbying for representation.
d/
ps. The current topic has a few people or groups claiming to represent one
constituency or another. It is important to realize that self-proclamation
is not sufficient to be taken seriously. There needs to be real and
substantial ties to that constituency, showing that the speakers actually
do have a mandate from their professed constituency. Some of those who are
highly active in this topic claim constituency authority, but have no basis
for it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
