[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

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 

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