At 09:28 AM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
Hey, I'll buy all of the below. And just as molecules in a beaker, mixed
one with another, like components will join like and precipitate out into a
significant weight to be applied to relevant issues, by the pure laws of
chemistry without unnatural, bureaucratic intervention.
Bill Lovell, chemist extraordinary.
>One comment on constituencies: I define constituencies in terms of the
>legitimate objectives and well being of the Internet as a whole:
>(i) those who provide the infrastructure of the Internet. Without them there
>would not be an Internet
>(ii) those who are affected by the Internet, such as the large and small
>users of the Internet: without them the Internet would not be as important
>(although it can exist as a small system). They are similar to investors in
>the markets.
>(iii) those who are adversely affected by the Internet, such as the trade
>mark owners. To the extent that they are users, we separate their interests.
>To protect themselves, their interests may be contrary to the interests of
>expanding and developing the Internet. They may, however, have legitimate
>complaints to the extent that the new technology undermines their existing
>rights. For them, we may need a solution to reduce their injury.
>Counterfitters are not a constituency because their interests contradict the
>objectives of the internet.
>
>
