Re: [ga-review] Re: Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual Property Constituency
Chris and all,
I am in agreement with Chris here to a very great degree.
It has been our [INEGroup] position that any and all "Interested
Parties" as put forth in the White Paper and the MoU can and should be
able to participate at any level and in any relevant constituency
in the ICANN process. However in that the constituency model
has been flawed from the outset, and pits one constituency against
another the DNSO GA becomes a common area or group where
the members of all the constituencies, and those that are not
represented by a constituency should be able to discuss, debate,
and otherwise communicate with each other in an open and
However some of the past events which have been imposed upon
the DNSO GA members and participants has not lead us or other
would be "Interested Parties" in participating actively and in an open
and unfettered way. As such it is our [INEGRoup] belief that until
or unless open participation is accepted and unthwarted rancor will
raise it's ugly head and negatively impact the DNSO and thereby
ICANN. Therefore it is not surprising that other forums and
organizations are forming or have been formed to air their
positions and disillusionment with ICANN is growing and gaining
support from those that are thwarted through various means in
open discourse within the ICANN structure.
> IMHO, Invite them! I'd love to hear how their opinions vary from one
> constituency to the other on say . . . cybersquatting, domain name
> speculation, how a TM is relegated to a particular class of commerce yet
> they apply it to generic words with a dot com on them that are not relegated
> by class in the way TMs are.
> I welcome their opinions with open arms and an equally open mind. I just
> think you should suggest to them they go get an open mind and bring it with
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Younger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 2:52 PM
> Subject: [ga-review] Re: Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual
> Property Constituency
> > As outreach is part of the consensus building process, perhaps we should
> > invite representatives of these constituencies to air their views on this
> > topic. They may have a point of view that we are not taking into account,
> > and they should assuredly be afforded the opportunity to participate in
> > dialogue on this issue. Would it be advisable to extend such an
> > at this time, or is it preferable to continue for a while with further
> > discussion?
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html