On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 10:08:40PM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >A private attorney who didn't want to spend the money to be, or
> >didn't feel they fit, in one of the other constituencies -- eg, a
> >trademark attorney that didn't want to be part of the TM
> >constituency. Concretely, maybe Bret Fausett.
>
> Actually, I think the "trademark lawyers who don't want to be a
> part of the trademark constituency" should be their own constituency.
> I suggest that the new allocation on the Names Council be as follows:
>
> 1.� Registries - 3
> 2.� Registrars - 3
> 3.� Infrastructure and connectivity providers - 3
> 4.� Business and other organizations -3
> 5.� Organizations primarily concerned with
> the interests of trademark owners - 3
> 6. Trademark lawyers who don't want to be
> a part of the trademark constituency - 3
How about
6. Public interest and consumer advocacy - 3
That has already been proposed as a meaningful category. I think it
captures a larger group than Trademark lawyers who don't want to be
part of the trademark constituency.
> 7.� At Large - 3
>
> This puts this noble new category on the same footing as
> the Registries. The previous 6 registry reps was just too many.
The registries, as might be expected, think that 6 is too few...
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
