Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> Why should this time be any different from the last time?  This sword that
> you think the IP/TM constituency is so afraid to wield has already decapitated
> the GTLD-MoU.  It's sharp enough to decapitate ICANN.

There are three distinct differences, this time.

* One is that the gTLD-MoU had no legal sanction from the US govt, and the creation of
ICANN, for all its warts, did.
* The other is that the WIPO process had not taken place.
* Another is that the TM/IP interests have been given a very large "seat at the table" in
the DNSO.

For any decision on new gTLDs to be implemented, it must pass through this committee and a
Names Council that has 6 hardwired votes for the TM/IP interests (the TM and Business
constituencies). WG-C itself has nine or ten representatives from the TM/IP community, last
time I counted, possibly more now.

So let's all save our breath about "political realities" OK?
WG-C has all the political reality it needs. We are swimming in it.

The *internal* politics of DNSO make it impossible for it to produce policies that are
completely out of synch with what the TM/IP constituents want, AND, it should also make it
impossible for the TM/IP interests to be intransigent.

The problem we face is not to make guesses about what is or is not politically feasible.
The problem we do face is to come to an agreement! I.e., we need to practice politics.

We cannot conduct these deliberations in an environment in which one group--any group--is
accorded veto power. Everyone will have to compromise. The only people and positions that
should be ignored are those that refuse to do show any accommodation to others.