Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Just as the US has state and populace representation.  We must have both
also.
Special interests (a State) populace a certain number of People.

And the only way for user representation to work is through a system that
creates some assemblance of equality between the two.

In that there is no human rights bill for the internet it would seem that the
laws should be left to protect the IPC and that ICANN should balance that
with users interests.
OTOH this overweighing on behalf of IP interests will be their undoing on the
internet.  Can you spell WorldCom?  Is ATT headed in the same direction?
Embracing the stockholder/stakeholder/user may not be a short term profitable
concept but stability it works.

Sincerely,
Eric

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:59:33 -0700, you wrote:
>
> > >Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
> > >not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
> > >collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
> >
> > While I understand this objection, I also note that many of the people
> > who participate in icannatlarge.com, in the ALOC or in the other At
> > Large efforts are acting on behalf of organizations who collectively
> > represent thousands of members.
>
> I have a concern that the assertion of representation is frequently
> nothing but a bald assertion.  For example, I have several interests in
> intellectual property - I have various patent, trademark, and copyright
> rights.  And I am a member of the California State Bar section on
> Intellectual Property (I'm speaking at its annual meeting next month).
> But I have not given my assent to be represented by those on the IPC.
>
> In fact how do we know that those people on the IPC are actually who they
> say they are and that they are properly accredited by the bodies they
> claim to represent?  Requirements for identification and authentication
> have been imposed on at-large and used as reasons to disembowel the
> at-large.  Why are such requirements not imposed equally on other bodies
> within ICANN?
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html