[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next
Erhem ... Gentlemensch,
What's the point? Please remember that this is a selectively small group. It
is small because no one else cares. Until this stuff starts directly
effecting the lives of others, no on else will. Mostly, we have had good and
reasonable discussions here. I learned a lot. However, because of the GP's
(General Public) large enthusiasm for all things, legal, we really don't
have a quorum. I find something repulsive in binding the at-large Internet
population with a vote that comprises less than 0.01% of that population
(and represents less than 1%). Personally, I don't think it's right. It is
certainly reversable. In the end, it may be a very small dust-mote, in a
very large sand pile.
This argument over legitimacy of the vote is moot, IMHO, and not worth the
time and energy. Given recent US PTO rulings, the output of this group may
also be moot. I am perfectly willing to agree that the consensus of this
group is, as the results of the votebot shows. However, I also realize that
I am not bound by it, a point that Milton misses, any more than I am bound
by the output of WG-C, whatever that may be. Also, with the degree of
high-jackings and railroading rampant in the DNSO.ORG (if you don't know
what I'm talking about, you're part of the problem), the legitimacy of the
entire process is questionable, at best.
However, I am deeply distrubed about one thing. The sheer audaciousness of
those that think that we can define famous marks when the rest of the
world's legal institutions and governing bodies can not even come to grips
with the problem. Where is our binding mandate? Do we now operate under some
UN charter or US Congressional decree? Do we, maybe, have an executive
order, from the US Executive? No, I think it should stop here because that
point is truly moot. Moreso than the first point. We would all look like
pompous fools in the attempt at addressing the problem and likewise the
ICANN would also lose some standing.
To put it plainly, we would be getting too big for our britches.
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Martin B. Schwimmer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:29 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next
> OK, I read it again. Not being privy to the votebot, in my
> personal view,
> the voting wasn't manipulated. What is your factual basis
> for believing
> that it was?