Einar Stefferud wrote:
> So, lets back up and reset/restart.
Yes.
> I do not support the DNSO-IP constituency as it is cleary working
> against my interests, but we shoudl not confuse the DNSO-IP)
> constituncy with the IDNO constituency,
;-) and not the DNSO-IP constituency with the dnso-ip list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the other DNSO-IP constituency, which
is more or less around that [EMAIL PROTECTED] list but not exactly
the same -- please see the descriptions at
http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html#info
> though I must say the the
> alphbet soup of constituency names has reached the point of no
> return;-)...
Yes. To clarify -- there are *two* different DNSO-IPs. Of course,
nothing prevents more than *one* constituency to form. But, why?
The formation of the Intellectual Property constituency proceeded in
two entirely different fronts: face-to-face meetings among representatives
from established trademark organizations and a more grass-roots approach
via these forums and the dnso-ip list -- thus these two DNSO-IPs should
not be confused with one another and your message may serve as a
motivation (or, my excuse) to call this difference.
And this split is also IMO occuring across the board as, indeed, it is not
necessarily a good strategy to coalesce all folks who act as isolated,
non-commercial or individual domain name holders into one single
constituency in the good name of "consensus"-- as noted when the
dnso-ip list was formed.
The first meeting of the established trademark organizations (AIPPI,
AIPLA, FICPI, ECTA, and INTA) was held, by invitation only, in Toronto
in March. So no trademark owners or other Internet stakeholders were
invited to this meeting that formed the first DNSO-IP contituency, which
was submitted to ICANN by Michael Heltzer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]),
March 31, 1999.
The second DNSO-IP constituency was submitted by Bret Fausett
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), April 9, 1999 and is being organized using the
dnso-ip list named above -- and which was CC'd in Joop's message,
as the only DNSO group CC'd.
Hence, my comments and call for a restart. There are not only too
many letters in this soup but many letters have double meanings (at
least) ;-).
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
