Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> I don't understand the comment that IP causes the problem. I haven't seen
> anyone from the IP constuency posting in this group.

That's because they are the *hired* advocates.  It would be rather presumptuous
for them to speak up outside their court offices and back-office meeting rooms.
Even if their personal opinions differed with those of their clients, they could
not be outwardly in favour of any behaviour which could cause any of their
clientele discomfort.  So, why should they bother?  In any case, it's not any
kind of secret to us little folk, that IP interests are largely responsible for
the pall over ICANN in the international public eye.  Frankly. I don't see how
anyone could miss it.

> I do agree with Eric's
> short statement that "off topic, too many, and nastiness drive people away.
> I certainly have been very reluctant to post because of some of the
> treatment I've received on other WGs.  And some from industry are just not
> willing to post, since they feel that they are immediately challenged,
> regardless of what they say, because they are commercial.

That would be extemely foolish.  I think we all agree that commerce is a good
thing.  I think we should also agree that there should be a respectability and
integrity in commercial practices.  Commerce is not, nor should it ever consider
itself to be an arbiter of Law and Justice, for that is surely a social
perversion.  Now, many people are *hurting* over the issues we are so casually
dining upon, carving them up with our imagination's knife, so to speak...  There
is definitely a problem, and it's directly related to an imbalance.  (BTW
Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is that
he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA List,
to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having been
nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on to
complete the WGr? )

*Of course, this is just one of the reasons why I believe polypragmatism does
not work very well when there's work to be done.

> If we expect to get to agreement, then we need to respect each sector's
> views and work to consensus of some kind.  Without nastiness.

Yes!  No more nastiness!   Let us leave the rancour aside, please.  It is most
disconcerting, and in frightfully bad taste in Good Society.

> I acknowledge the view expressed that the existing constituencies have a
> stranglehold, (I may not agree with it, however), but the irony here is that
> they are pretty frustrated themselves with seeking how to improve the
> process and I believe, want to see improvement in understanding.

One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on all
pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably coined
word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a move
would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to some
areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
*somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing list of
*reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?  Do we
live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on both
sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.  To
date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.  Correct
me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are supposed to
be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when the
decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.


--
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