Re: [wg-b] Sunrise Genealogy

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 03:47:59PM -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

[...snip...]

> 
> After talking to the various people I decided to submit a position paper
> during the position paper comment period. In summary my paper called for the
> creation of a famous marks list using a dual objective and subjective
> criteria, instead of the purely subjective criteria set forth in Chapter
> Four of the WIPO report. This decision was based upon the feedback from
> comment from the 50+ people that attended the LA ICANN meeting. Those mark
> holders appearing on the list would then be able to exercise a right of
> first refusal during a defined Sunrise period. My original position paper
> posted on Dec. 9, 1999 can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/msg00467.html .




[...snip...]



> 
> Today I received the latest IPC proposal. I cannot discuss the specifics of
> this document because I was not involved in its drafting. However, I am
> happy to say that it seems to have built on the efforts of the last couple
> of months. Obviously, other people will disagree with this latest consensus
> building efforts. I respect these opinions and will properly note them in my
> WG-B report.


So, in sum, the grand total of discussion of this proposal in any form
in the full working group, where everyone had a chance to participate
and have input during the "consensus-building" process to which you
refer, was your posting of it as your position paper in December of
last year.

And yet you intend to present a version of this proposal as the WG-B
report (disclaimer or no disclaimer, this IS the WG-B report.)

This is unacceptable.  You have limited participation in the development of
this working group's product to those you deigned to talk with, and those
who could afford to attend the WG-B meetings in person at the various ICANN
meetings.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA