Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

[martys@interport.net]

1.  Dr. Victoria Carrington is an attorney.

2.  Jon's vote wasn't counted anyway so her station in life is moot.

3.  Mueller still hasn't substantiated his allegation that secretaries
voted (nor his long division).

4.  If you were criticizing a vote that obtained a majority by one vote as
not being a consensus, you would have a point.  In an environment where two
thirds has become the definition of consensus, you have criticized a
consensus as not being consensus.

5.  What if a person on this list participated in the WIPO process, read
every posting here, and didn't feel the need to re-hash the same debates we
have had since 1996, and merely voted.  Is such a person a sleeper?  If you
want to add a "must post twice a week" rule (call it the inverse-Rutkowski
rule (an inside wg-c joke)) - fine - only it can't be retroactive in
effect.

6.  You want to question the way this working group was formed, fine, I
agree it was screwy.  But July would have been a better time to raise the
point, not four hours after a vote.  But it should be working Group D that
makes recommendations - it should not become the subject of this list.
Otherwise we will just have the same factions arguing about something other
than the protection of famous marks on the Internet.





>Martin Schwimmer says that Victoria Carrington's association with
>Jon Cohen cannot be characterized as "secretaries and staff members."
>
>This is not what I have observed.  Jon has identified Victoria as a
>staff member, and I have consistently used her email address to reach him.
>
>The gist of this question is: is the voting being manipulated?
>
>We have a loud and clear suspicion raised by this vote.  The fact that
>consensus was achieved by 1 vote, following heavy voting by persons who have
>not participated in the dialogue -- and in cases where voters are
>professionally
>associated --  raises reasonable doubts.
>
>Have the rolls been stacked with people who sit back and do not participate,
>and only vote when requested to do so?
>
>Using 'sleeper voters' in this manner would be highly unethical in my
>opinion.  And
>the question deserves an answer.
>
>Milton Mueller is absolutely correct that before proceeding on any issues, we
>need to pay attention to this one.
>
>The credibility and future functioning of WG-B is at stake.
>
>
>Dennis Schaefer
>
>----------
>> Edited Results (co-chairs not included)
>> Eligible voters: 51
>> Votes cast: 38 (75%)
>> Option A: 27
>> Option B: 4
>> Option C: 0
>> Option D: 7
>> Option E: 0
>> Number needed for consensus: 26
>> RESULTS: Consensus for Option A
>>
>>
>> This is the edited results, not counting the disputed votes.  Incidentally,
>> Jon's vote wasn't counted because he is co-chair.  How is this not two
>>thirds?
>>
>> By the way, do you have reason to believe that these people are
>> "secretaries and staff members"?  I know that neither Marilyn Cade nor
>> Michelle Farber can be charaterized as such, nor can Jon Cohen and Victoria
>> Carrington.
>>
>> >
>> >I'm afraid that we cannot move forward on this because of the concerns you
>> >enumerate above. Stacking the WG with secretaries and staff members from the
>> >same organization, particularly when these people have not participated in
>> any
>> >of the discussions, seems to be prima facie evidence of a manipulation
>>of the
>> >process.
>> >
>> >The  key fact here is that if those illegitimate votes are not
>>recognized the
>> >2/3 bar is not passed. I do not accept the results as indicating a 2/3
>> level of
>> >support in the WG.
>> >
>> >> Now we must decide as a working group where we choose to go.
>> >
>> >I think we need to recognize the fact that there is not 2/3 support for any
>> >famous mark protection via DNS administration (there is plenty of
>> protection in
>> >other ways). therefore, I find the questions below inappropriate.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>>
>>