[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline
At 15:54 24-03-2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>However, I would encourage all participants in this list to voice their
>concerns now so that I can properly reflect your concerns in the interim
>report.
Dear Michael:
I believe the report as you presented it is a realistic statement of the
present situation, which is a diversity of views depending upon "whose bull
is being gored". It does not imply a consensus for any particular
position. I presume a vote will follow in the fullness of time.
I made some comments about the syntax, e.g. the use of a pronoun for the
Registrar Constituency ("their") rather then making it clear that there was
a change of subject in the sentence. I have a similar problem with the
WG-C report. "RC" certainly is not an unambiguous way to designate the
Registrar Constituency. Nor is IPC a good way to designate the IP
Constituency. When it gets into the Non Commercial Constituency and
others, it makes it very hard to read within the WG and impossible for
outsiders.
I recommend some definitions the first time an abbreviation is used,
according to a common convention of prose. For example, "According to the
Registrar Constituency (RCon), thus and so...".
I also recommend using "Con" rather than "C" to designate "Constituency".
From a substantive point of view, I believe we must continue to remind
ourselves (and those who read our reports and postings) that the
fundamental purpose of Trademark laws is to protect the
consumer. Stressing the rights of holders of famous trademarks puts the
cart before the horse.
OTOH, the holder of trademarks has the responsibility to police the use of
its marks *specifically to protect the potential consumer*.
Other than that, all is well;-}
Regards, BobC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've sawed this board off three times, and it's *still* too short".
"Small choice between rotten apples." Dr. U.B. Bray