Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual Property Constituency
It is indeed a rare opportunity for me to do this :)
I whole heartedly support this suggestion. Going back to the
formation days I've felt that the existence of these two
constituencies were a gross overlap.
At the very least, the business constituency should be redefined to be
a "small business" constituency, who do not tend to be as in line with
the IP interests as a group in comparison.
Friday, June 08, 2001, 8:41:49 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
> The history of the DNSO is replete with joint communiqués issued by the
> Business and Intellectual Property Constituency:
> 1. BC-IPC Safeguards Precis (Sept.2000)
> 2. Minimum safeguards for the introduction of new TLDs - a joint statement
> from the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (Sept. 2000)
> The Business Constituency website routinely posts remarks from the
> Intellectual Property Constituency such as, "IP Constituency Statement on
> Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement".
> It is clear to even the most casual observer that the affinity between these
> two groups is such that we are essentially looking at two sides of the same
> coin. A merger of these two constituencies would seem to be indicated.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
William X Walsh
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html