[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes



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