Re: [ga] Re: Channels to create an IC
"babybows.com" wrote: My personal view...If the inference is "too little, too late," as it would seem to be, I agree wholeheartedly. The negative impression of the NC expressed by the INTLA (or whatever the hell that is -- the 11,000 trademark lawyers) would have been quite correct, although they were quite wrong on the IC issue. Any restructuring of the DNSO (see below) should also consider eliminating the NC, if what we seem to be seeing is truly representative of its "work." Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"... This is yetDanny raises a legitimate issue here. So long as there are constituencies at all, I believe there should be an IC -- Individuals' Constituency -- and I think the last week or so has shown quite a bit more support for one than Danny's email to which I now respond suggests. I remind you that the majority of the members of the Review Working GroupThat is worthy of consideration. At the same time, I'd put in a plug for the separate emal groups (ga-ext, etc.) that Patrick has set up. Reason is, I've got 172 emails staring at me right now, and with just a broad GA list everything under the sun would be coming in. (I'm a "techie" in my own fields, but IP structures and all that are just not my bag, and the work of the other SOs is not my bag either, so I don't need all that in my inbox.) It's just a matter of focus on the issues in which one specifically wishes to get involved. (This is not a decisive thing, however -- if we end up with just the GA list, I'll use my delete button.) It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions already reached.Especially, since the accepted motion is at hand which says that the creation of an Individuals' Constituency -- IC -- be studied, that those on whatever Working Group that is get cracking. The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals' ConstituencyNot so -- see above, and below. When Joop fails to post on this topic onThe "idno Chair" -- Joop Ternstra -- has now jumped into the IC bit quite a lot on [ga], I believe a lot of which is dated after this email to which I now respond, so if that is or was a problem, it has gone away. An effort has been made to discourage bringing up the past history of theWhy? If everyone is now on board an IC effort as Individuals, what difference does any of that make? Today's emails from Joop show that he can be as flexible as the rest of us, and indeed WXW has graciously expressed his own willingness to join with others that have "followed his path," so to speak, and speak out as Individuals on the IC issue, i.e., others who support having an IC, so if such bunches of people (separately as Individuals and speaking in each case only from their own personal perspectives) are lining up in support of having an IC, why rock the boat? Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, theOf course the idno would have, and indeed already has, through Joop's earlier motion. That tide seems to be turning, however, and I think it VERY important to make clear a distinction here. We vote FIRST on the question of whether to have an IC. Although a lot of poohbah will go into deciding that issue, such poohbah undoubtedly including competing charters and various personages rushing to the front of the line, the QUESTION on which a vote is first to be taken -- a question which by the rules permits only a yes or a no -- will be: Should there be an IC? If that came out affirmative, then, and only then, would the issue of who that's going to be would become of relevance. I say we fight that battle when we get to it, with the observation that "who that's going to be" will most certainly be all of us -- it could in fact BE the GA! (I'd not favor that, though, without a simultaneous abolishment of the NC -- this is an "off the top notion," and I might well change it upon further thought. One such thought rests on the role of the GA in speaking for, or more exactly, including, others than individuals, and one would not want that to disappear. And then there's that At- Large thing. Life do get complicated.) (Having been cut off by my ISP because I took too long to write
If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their ownSee above. The channels are available to them underBut also, if we now have a Working Group examining the IC issue, we should let that proceed (unless we discover that all of those on that WG have died and gone to heaven). I say this only because to have this group or that grinding out a deluge of Petitions to the Board would be quite a confusing mess. Direct line procedures that lead to the Board are now in place and presumably functioning. And I might add, terms such as "transparent ploy" are counterproductive and ought not to be used. (On the other hand, I found "unstabilized disruptor" to be so hilarious
This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed atAs I read the latest from Joop, while that might have been the case initially, it may not be so now. For reasons for which I am partly to blame in seeking a new effort (Patrick has spoken out against the same, and I now agree with him), simply because at that time I (like Vany) was not aware of the "ground rules" already set out but which Vany later pointed out, we should all now be aware of the resolution that because of those ground rules has an IC effort presently functioning(?). If that is really so, I suggest we let it proceed; if it is not, I suggest we tar and feather those who agreed to do that work and have not done so, if that is the case, and one way or the other replace them with others who will. Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week. He and I will jointlySo let's see if that happens. (As always, there's a lot of stuff to pore through here, and if I've
got any
Bill Lovell
|