Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Jay Fenello a écrit:
> 
> Damn Michael,
> 
> Even though I've been called a cyber-cowboy,
> at least I keep my 6-shooter holstered until
> I have something to shoot at ;-)

Nothing to shoot at? You're joking. Corporate trademark lawyers are half way
to co-opting the DNSO, and you say there's nothing to shoot at?

> At 1/19/99, 05:13 AM, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Jay Fenello a écrit:
> >
> >> I've only read up to the point clipped below,
> >> but if the intro is any indication, this is
> >> going to be a very impressive document.
> >
> >What is this, diplomacy? Jay Fenello, the mediator, friend to all?
> 
> No, this is a compliment for an *introduction*
> that is extremely well written.  Do you disagree?

That intro is a total mis-characterization of the situation. It's an attempt
at justifying the addition of the INTA's corporate hierarchy structure into
the application. Incorporation law requires none of it. Kent Crispin is just
kissing ass. That's all.

> >You like this draft, Jay? You approve of the corporate takeover? No open
> >books? No membership control of the NC? You agree with that?
> 
> Do I like this draft?  I haven't even read this
> draft!  (I hate reading by-laws)

Well, if you haven't read it, why give testimonials for it?

> But in case there is any question, I am against
> corporate takeovers, I am against closed books,
> and I am against *token* memberships.

Happy to hear it. But what you don't seem to realize is that there's a split
in the DNSO.org, and every support for this revised text, which has never
been approved by the BNA/MTY participants and is contradictory to the
Monterrey consensus, is a blow to the opposition. Now, the people who have
done this unilateral revision of the application can point to you and say
"the ORSC likes it", or even just "Jay Fenello likes it", since your voice
is respected.


> Michael, you were one of DNSO.org's most vocal
> supporters.  You went to Monterey, and you were
> on several of DNSO.org's closed lists.  So what
> happened?  

I supported the participants at Monterrey and their consensus. I am rabidly
against this revision and deviation from the consensus, which is a
railroading job by the "drafting team", that is, the CORE leadership. I
support the DNSO participants, not the leadership and organizers when they
won't respect due process and the will of the majority.

> Aren't you at least partially
> responsible for the current draft?

I've fought tooth and nail to stop them from placating the INTA and changing
the Monterrey consensus. Maybe you haven't seen all my postings criticizing
the INTA's backroom tactics (see the ICIIU criticism of the INTA's proposal
at the dnso.org website and at http://www.iciiu.org/dnso.htm). Dr. Lisse has
done the same. Some of the French and Latin American participants also seem
to be against the drafting committee's unilateral revision of the Monterrey
consensus, although, with the dnso.org list manipulations, it's impossible
any more to know what the participants are thinking. But those who have
actively opposed this draft want to preserve the DNSO.org participatory
organization, which was very strong, very united at Monterrey. It has been
subverted by Crispin and co., solely in order to placate the INTA.

  
> Why are you taking your frustrations out on me?

Because supporting the DNSO.org drafting team (Mr. Crispin) is harmful. A
small group of DNSO.org people have decided to give in to WIPO and the
INTA/ICC lawyers, and will be pressing for acceptance of their corporate
structure in Washington. Every bit of support for their position, however
well-meaning or simply ignorant of the situation, is extremely detrimental
at this juncture, when the right-thinking DNSO.org participants are
disorganized (kept in the dark through the list manipulations: no dialogue
on the participants@dnso.org list: not invited to the January 21st meeting:
kept out of teleconferences, etc.).

Stef has said the ORSC won't support the demands of the INTA. Why come out
on a public list and give credit and credence to an unsupported, revised
draft that includes the most obnoxious of them?