SV: [wg-c] ballot stuffing

["Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se>]

I echo Rita (it's no need to say anything yourselves, when others do it better!)

In my opinion, the "6-10" question is the wrong one, at least as long as we have not solved all the other questions. I am not only talking about the three trademark related prerequisites stated in the PPC (however I can still not see that these matters are perfectly solved, no less adopted in any official comments or summary from our Chairs), but also of the other questions we were supposed to handle in this WG.

To make a decision now on the question "how many", would severely and unnecessary limit our possibilities to deal with the question on the environment and implementation for these new gTLDs.

Therefore, I have no other options than to vote "NO".

Regards,
Petter Rindforth
 
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Rita M. Odin <OdinR@arentfox.com>
Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Datum: den 11 december 1999 09:00
Ämne: Re: [wg-c] ballot stuffing


>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.  Furthermore, 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