[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Setting the Record Straight
Michael D. Palage writes:
> I am working with Eric Menge at the SBA to have a roundtable
teleconference for all to participate.
Mark C. Langston writes:
> I eagerly await the announcement of the teleconference time, date, dial-in
number, and any codes or passphrases required to participate. The
announcement should be made to the working group, so that _ALL_ members may
participate.
The SBA Office of Advocacy held a meeting in January with representatives of
various constituencies, some present in person, some by phone bridge.
Trademark, small business, non-commercial, registrar, and other
"constituency" representatives were invited to discuss their views on
various agenda topics, including so-called Famous Marks, so that the SBA
Office of Advocacy could formulate its *own* submission to ICANN regarding
all of the issues on the table and their impacts on small business.
That said, I was startled at Michael Palage's candid and passionate plea
that we cede to the trademark lobby on the matter of Famous Marks.
In raised voice and beyond emphatic, he stated, "The trademark lobby must be
placated because of its potential ability and inclination to bankrupt new
registrars and wreck havoc on their registrant databases."
I came away with the impression that he might even disagree with giving
preferential treatment to Famous Marks, but he made it crystal clear that we
have to accept the trademark lobby's position in order to save us all from a
very real impending threat to internet stability.
Its worth noting for the record that "the trademark lobby['s] ... potential
ability and inclination to bankrupt new registrars and wreck havoc on their
registrant databases," places its mantra of "cybersquatter as extortionist"
in its proper *inconsequential* prospective.
I also fail to see how any threat to internet stability "specifically ...
protect[s] the potential consumer" ('the fundamental purpose of trademark
laws', according to a recent WG-B post by Joseph Weinberg.}
How would we react if the registrar constituency on WG-B held internet
stability hostage (by "ability and inclination") unless it got what it
wanted -- not, no less, forcing an issue in order to preserve and protect
the internet and its universe, but just to fill its own coffers?*
There's a big difference between considering and coming to consensus on
legitimate opinions, and being held up at gun point.
I'd like to know why Mr. Palage has not revealed his knowledge of the tm
lobby's "potential" intentions to this working group (and formally to ICANN
and Commerce regarding its potential threat to internet stability.)
Judith Oppenheimer
*Of course, the registrar constituency is held somewhat accountable,
individually, by its contractual obligations to ICANN. The trademark
constituency is held to no standards of conduct beyond corporate
benefactors' greed, its accountability 'judged' only by its peers.
800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Consulting – FREE Daily HeadsUp Headlines.
"...superb real-time source..." –– "...invaluable..." ––
"...indispensable..."
http://ICBTollFree.com –– http://1800TheExpert.com –– (U.S.) 1 800 The
Expert
Judith Oppenheimer –– mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com –– +1 212
684-7210
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Michael D. Palage
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 11:56 PM
To: Mark C. Langston; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-b] Setting the Record Straight
Will I ever live to see the day when an ICANN process is not claimed to be
high-jacked by special interest groups, back -door negotiations, and clear
violations of ICANN's open and transparent process. NO. So now to address
the false allegations which only further attempt to divert what little time
we have left for true consensus building.
In addition to my duties as Chair of this Working Group, I am also
secretariat of the Registrar Constituency. Needless to say the registrars
have a vested interest in this Working Group. Therefore, the registrars have
taken an active role in the process similar to their role in drafting of the
UDRP. To my knowledge there is nothing preventing constituencies from
talking to other constituencies about ICANN policies that directly impact
them.
In the Status Report which I submitted to the Names Counsel there was a full
and open disclosure of the negotiations transpiring between the
constituencies. In addition, in Cairo on two separate occasions I updated
the General Assembly and the ICANN Board on the consensus building efforts
between the constituencies. Check the real-audio broadcast on archive at
Harvard.
Now to further show what a devious person I am, when drafting the status
report I let the Intellectual Property and Non-Commercial Constituency write
their respective portions that appears in the status report. And in another
behind the scenes clandestine activity, I am working with Eric Menge at the
SBA to have a roundtable teleconference for all to participate. Why you ask.
Because I realize that not everyone can attend the ICANN meetings or belong
to a constituency with the financial resources for teleconferences.
In closing, I award you Mark Langston the Oscar for the best conspiracy that
never was.
Sorry Mark, please don't take this e-mail personal, but it has just been a
loooooong weekend, it is midnight and I still have a couple of hours of pro
bono ICANN work to finish.
Best regards,
Michael D. Palage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Mark C.
Langston
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 10:06 PM
To: wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Creation of Famous List
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 06:46:35PM -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
>
> I tend to agree, kudos to Michael Palage. However, I have been aware of
the
> move to off-list discussion. I didn't like it and, even on invititation,
> declined to participate. For one, I don't have the time ro follow a
> fragmented discourse in multiple threads, especially one where I have to
> setup another 20 filters to handle. This list is the official instrument
and
> I would wish that it be used as such.
I had suspected from the significant lack of discussion on this list that
substantive work was occurring "behind the scenes." This verifies it.
If any decisions have been made, documents produced, or conclusions
reached without the opportunity for input from ALL interested
participants, and without the production of a record that is provided
by discussion on this list, then I protest in the strongest possible
terms. This violates the spirit and the very purpose of the working
groups, and destroys even the illusion of openness and inclusion.
With this confirmation that significant work has occurred behind the
backs of those of us who joined this working group in good faith, any
claim of consensus made in any document handed to any body is rendered
highly suspect.
Consider this a formal complaint. This is also being sent to the
Secretariat of the DNSO Names Council and Mike Roberts. I request
this matter be investigated and appropriate action taken.
>
> The issue is to not make new law. This would tend to support the prime
facie
> conclusion that our work is done and perforce, inconclusive. Here is a
> Registry strategy that will probably be used;
>
> 1) Allow any and all registrations.
> 2) When two entities collide in law, point them to the nearest court of
> comptetent jurisdiction.
> 3) Await results and follow court orders exactly, meanwhile ... business
as
> usual.
I stand in support of Roeland in this, and with Mikki Barry's sentiments
regarding concerns over this group's product. Please include them
as comments regarding the current WG-B report, along with mine as noted
in this mailing.
--
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA