Re: [ifwp] Ripple

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Mr. Sondow wrote:
>
>If this process were really being done in a fair way, the INTA would have
>sent you their proposal. Instead, they insert themselves by extra-procedural
>means onto the drafting team of the DNSO.org and present their bylaws
>proposals to a few people in the DNSO.org instead of at a meeting attended
>by a large number of participants, in order to explout and usurp the name of
>the DNSO.org for themselves. 

First off, I was invited to join the dnso drafting team at Monterrey and
begged off because of work commitments in December, so INTA did not need to
inert itself "by extra-procedural means."

Second, if INTA had merely submitted a proposal to ICANN, I believe that
the proposal would have been criticized for not representing the views of a
consensus of stakeholders, and you and others would have accused INTA of
attempting to subvert the consensus process.  Instead, INTA has presented
its proposal to the world, as have several other entities other than
dnso.org (and just as ORSC, BWG, Ms. Hauben and of course, INEG) presented
alternate ICANN proposals.  

Is there someone on the dnso or ifwp lists who does not have access to the
INTA proposal and does not have these forums to present their opposing views?

In an enviroment where people on this list have referred to trademark
interests as white slavers and I imagine INTA is under no illusions that it
will "usurp" the dnso.org process.

After all, Ms. Dyson's article on the Grateful Dead model of intellectual
property management proves that she will never sell out the Internet to
trademark interests.