Re: [wg-c] ballot stuffing

["Rita M. Odin" <OdinR@arentfox.com>]

William,

I'm not going to argue with you regarding the hidden (and not-so-hidden) motivations of the members of this list.  I don't pretend to know everyone's motivation.  I suggest that you may not as well, despite the fact that you believe you do.  

Also, I would note that while all the "yes" voters may have had (and continue to have) difficulty agreeing over various points (for instance whether the business model of the registries should be dictated by ICANN and, if so, what those business models shoul look like) I do not believe that any of those people have ever disagreed over whether new gTLDs should be added.  It seems to me that not one of the "yes" voters has ever argued that there should not be new gTLDs or they should be very limited in number.  Therefore, I don't believe that the commonality of "yes" votes by the people expressing them is indicative of a compromise position from any of them, except for those who wanted to start with more than 6-10, but who realize that some are better than none.

I also don't see any of those people successfully reaching a compromise on the issues that really divide them.  

Rita

BTW - I haven't voted yet.

>>> "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> 12/10/1999 4:53:59 PM >>>

Hello Rita,

I think it was worth noting that so far all of the "No" votes have a common thread, and
that indeed they have a common motivation.  

Whereas in the "yes" votes we have a broad base of opinion, people who would have a hard
time agreeing that the sky was blue normally.

Those voting yes have, for the most part, had to make vast compromises in their own
hardfast opinions to consent to this, in an effort to move forward and have progress.
Those voting no obviously do not feel they can be a part of a compromise.

Fine, that is their right, but don't expect it to go unnoticed, or for others, such as
Dave or the rest of us, to comment on it.

It helps the others who may be on the fence to put the votes into perspective, and see
the common thread behind those who are "dissenting."


On 10-Dec-1999 Rita M. Odin wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> I have several points to make concerning your disingenuous posting below: 
> 
> 1. Who counts as a "regular participant"?  While I have not been vocal of late, I
> continue to monitor the activity on this list and will voice my opinion when I have
> something relevant (and not redundant) to say.  If I have not added to the debate lately
> , it is because I do not feel that my voice is necessary, not because I am not a
> "regular participant."  In my opinion, the list (and the debate) could benefit if
> others were equally restrained in expressing their often times repetitious postings. 
> Furthermor
> e, the members of the trademark community are as validly a part of this debate as are
> you and the constituency that you purport to represent.
> 
> 2. Certainly, the "no" votes can not come as a surprise considering the fact that many
> of these same people (as well as myself) have argued from the inception of this Working
> Group for the need to proceed with caution.  I, for one, have continuously stressed my
> position that before we add new gTLDs, it is imperative that we consider the impact
> that they will have on IP interests and attempt to clear up the problems that we
> currently have in the present system.  I disagree that many of the "no" votes are new 
> participants.  Many of them signed Position Paper C.  The fact that they, like me, have
> recently been silent does not mean that they are "new" to the group.  I believe that
> Jonathan said that he would freeze the membership of the list during the vote.  If he
> has indeed frozen membership, then your point re: ballot stuffing is not well taken.
> 
> 3) All members of the list were asked to vote - not only those members that you deem to
> be "regular participants" and therefore worthy of voicing their position.  You have no
> right to make a judgment as to the validity of anyone's position other than your own. 
> I suggest that you refrain from making unfounded accusations regarding the propriety of
> certain members' votes.
> 
> 
> 
> Rita M. Odin
> Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
> 202/857-8927
> odinr@arentfox.com 
> 
>>>> Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> 12/10/1999 12:04:36 PM >>>
> Looks like the trademark community needed about a day to get organized.
> 
> For the first day of  wg-c (re-)balloting on the matter of 6-10 new gTLDs , 
> regular participants responded readily and overwhelmingly 
> positively.  Notable is that the support is from the full range of regular 
> participants, no matter how strongly they might have disagreed about other 
> matters, in the past.
> 
> Yesterday and today we see a large number of new names, many voting 
> no.  Most appear to have affiliations that suggest an underlying concern 
> about brand protection.  Those adding comments to their votes raise very 
> old issues, thereby suggesting entirely entrenched positions and no 
> willingness to compromise.  (If they are so concerned about the points they 
> raise, why did they not participate in any of the many months of discussion?)
> 
> This highlights the difficulties in the process.  An open process based on 
> rough consensus requires a broad commitment towards making forward 
> progress.  A well-organized community can too readily side-track or block work.
> 
> d/
> 
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934