[wg-c] Public trust?

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 06:06 AM 8/18/99 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>I hold that it is not a public resource or a public
>trust, but just private brand names, and that the
>latter view will ultimately not prevail in our public
>policy and legal systems.
>
>I realize that you and some others hold the public
>resource/trust view.  For some, it appears to be
>an orthodox religious tenet, where no apostasy is
>allowed.

Let's make sure we note that Tony's opinion is one attorney's view, while 
the public resource/trust perspective has been supported rather strongly by 
many other lawyers.

I also seem to recall that the US government's green/white paper put that 
view forward, too.

In the case that IODesign brought against the IAHC, the judge who refused 
to grant an injunction also seemed to hold that view... rather strongly.

These, of course, are not comments about religion, but law.

>The issue before us is whether we can accommodate
>eachother's views.  I believe that can be easily
>done.  What do you think?

I would be interested to see how one "accommodates each other's views" 
concerning a disagreement about whether a thing has, or does not have, a 
particular attribute.

The idea of compromise works well in general.  However it works poorly with 
respect to basic disagreements about basic concepts and paradigms.

In these cases, it is not possible to "accommodate".

Instead one must choose between them.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>