Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Milton, > > You wrote: > > <snip> > > You are not correct, I believe, in then > > jumping to the conclusion that TM interests must be given privileged > > membership > > status in a DNSO. > > > If this is a possible reading of my post, I apologize for lack of clarity. > My position is that, if we assume that we will be using constituencies (or > SIGs, or classes of Membership) to identify the different interests, > Trademark should be included. Why? What is the rational? > > This, of course, does not imply that they need to have 3 seats in the > Council, but just that they need to be recognized as a valid group of > interest. Fine. But do they need to have their own class of membership? For that matter are any specific classes of membership needed or even advantageous at all? If so, how? > > > <snip> > > Do you understand the point I am making? It is not that TM holders > > shouldn't > > participate, be listened to, or be protected. It is that membership > > classes must > > not be structured to reflect particular policy positions. > > > I think I understand the point, but I don't see an alternative. To keep them > out will be, IMHO, a big mistake. To have a membership class to cater for > this type of interest will allow them to have a voice in the DNSO. They can have just as much a voice without having a SIG class as with one. > Of course, we have to find a way to properly balance this voice with > everybody's else voice. The only to FAIRLY and TRANSPARENTLY, which is required under the White Paper, it to have no classes at all. > > > <snip> > > > The TM interests are amply represented by WIPO and by trade organizations > > and > > lobbyists in every developed country. As commercial members of a DNSO, and > > as > > general members of ICANN, they can and will make their presence felt. > > There is > > no justification for creating a special membership class that makes their > > interests more important than other interests. > > > It is not a matter of making them more important than the others, it is to > guarantee them right of citizenship. They have a right to citizenship to any organization that has an OPEN membership policy without any special need for a special "Class" of membership created for them or any other constituency. > > The Registrars as well can be commercial members of the DNSO, and general > members of ICANN, but nobody is questioning their right to an explicit > collocation in a constituency. > > > I understand the risks and problems associated with telling TM interests > > this > > fact. They have decided they have a right to guaranteed representation. > > They > > want to turn the DNSO and ICANN into international regulatory agencies > > that > > police trademarks in a more efficient, centralized way than the normal > > legal > > channels. Someone must have the courage to tell them that this is not > > going to > > happen. This will not make them happy. But if you grant their wishes you > > will > > alienate large sectors of the registrar, registry, and user communities. I > > guarantee it. > > > You got the point, Milton. > As you point out, there is a conflict of interest between Registrars, > Registries, User Communities and Trademarks/Commercial interests. > To put in place a structure in which some, but not all, will have rights to > have their voice heard via a specific constituency will be sheer injustice > (and probably never accepted by ICANN). Whether ICANN excepts anything will, if legitimate, be determined by the VOTE of the Individual Membership Organization. > > The very fact that the current DNSO proposal has 9 seats for the Council > "granted" to Registrars and Registries should suggest the idea of who, if > somebody, is trying to grab the power. And this should not be allowed either if DNSO.ORG is to be considered following the requirements of the White Paper. > > > In fact, things are not so bad, because in Monterrey the constituency that > had the majority of the attendees (the Registries) agreed on right of > citizenship for the Trademarks. The disagreement was only on the figures. May be at Monterrey, this was the case. But Monterrey, does not even come close to anything near a broad consensus. > > > <snip> > > Then get rid of membership classes altogether, or make them very simple, > > such as > > commercial, non-commercial, network operators. > > > Very good. > I already said that I am looking with great interest to Onno's proposal on > this list, which is different from yours but goes in the same direction. > But the solution cannot be imposed, as you seemed to suggest in one of your > postings, with few strokes of the pen, because it's not you or me who > decides, it's the participants to the discussion. > The whole consensus building process is built around this principle. Exactly correct. Too bad that the DNSO.ORG bunch don't seem to recognize this clearly. > > > What I may suggest is that you join the discuss@dnso.org list and bring your > ideas there: you may succeed in convincing some other people, and that's the > beginning of a consensus. > > Regards > Roberto > > P.S.: Bring your friends too. The more, the merrier. > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature