Re: January DNSO meeting for the trademark interests

Michael Sondow (msondow@iciiu.org)
Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:31:16 -0500


Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
>
> Roeland, Michael,
>
> Roeland wrote:
>
> > At 11:36 PM 12/17/98 , Michael Sondow wrote:
> > >Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:
> > >>
> > >> At 12:18 PM 12/17/98 , Michael Sondow wrote:
> > >
> > >> >There won't be enough time to incorporate what that meeting produces
> > >> >into the application. It's too late. The DNSO will be forced to accept
> > >> >everything, without discussion and consensus, just because of the time
> > >> >problem. This may well be why they put it off until the end of
> > January.
> > >> >The DNSO should not go along with this, IMHO.
> > >>
> >
> There's no way we can avoid it.

We could refuse to put off the meeting so long, and have it at the
beginning of January. The INTA cannot reasonably expect to introduce new
proposals days or weeks before the final application submission. Was the
situation explained to them and the date of the meeting negotiated, or
did we just capitulate to their agenda?

> > >> You are experiencing first-hand what many have dealt with over the
> > years.
> > >> You are now welcomed to the discussions, but the original work, warts
> > and
> > >> all, must be accepted because there is no time allowed for
> > review.<grin>
> >
> I disagree.
> I prefer to miss the first train, than to start with the wrong foot.

There is no reason to miss the train, unless that's what the INTA wants
to happen and we go along with it.

> > >Well, if that's the way it's going to be played then the answer is to go
> > >and fight it out, word for word, at the meeting.
> >
> > That was also tried. It didn't work. What is not understood by all is,
> > that
> > this wasn't acceptable then and it isn't acceptable now. Those who stand
> > by
> > such a process are going to have to see it fail, yet again, before they
> > get a clue. The problem is that the failure events are vastly
> > out-numbering
> > the success events and time *is* marching onwards. There is a certain,
> > indeterminate, number of aborts that this whole process can sustain before
> > the entire concept loses credibility, IMHO.
> >
> Roeland, I agree with you 100% if I take your post as an abstract
> consideration.
> OTOH, I believe that there's something you did not write, but that is there,
> and that I disagree with.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that this is a well
> orchestrated organization by some evil group that will put everybody now
> face to the fait-accompli of the loss of time and need for accepting the
> lesser damage of a flawed application vs. losing the train.
>
> I cannot agree.
> I believe that we have two genuinely conflicting interests: on one hand the
> "technical" constituencies, that somehow agreed on some points, and that
> were more or less ready to go to the next step, and the Trademark/Commercial
> interests, that were not happy with the outcome so far.

That conflict of interests is nothing new. It's been on the table since
this process started in June, and even before.
The trademark people, and the businesses they represent, don't want to
participate in the process and negotiate, and are manipulating us so
that their interests take precedence over those of the rest of the
community. They knew about the earlier meetings. The INTA's rep was even
at Monterrey. If there were points they wanted to propose and arguments
they wanted to submit, why didn't they do it then? They can't say they
weren't ready; they've been developing their position through continuous
meetings in the WIPO process. Why didn't they come forward, instead of
engineering a late meeting (with no justification for the date) that
leaves little or no room for discussion and wrap-up before the
application has to be submitted?

> What to do? The only reasonable thing (IMHO).
> Back to the drawing board, for the next iteration.

That sounds good, but when will it occur? Between the end of January
and the beginning of February?

> > IMHO, most of understand that the goal is worth striving for.
> > Unfortunately, not all of us understand that the process is part of the
> > goal.
> >
> ... and I believe that this (of going back to the drawing board) is the only
> viable process.

The point Roeland is making here, Roberto, and which follows from my
statement of the present situation (i.e. that there won't be time for
the drawing board), is that untimely meetings and ultimatums from one
contigent are not part of a viable process. If the trademark people want
to destabilize the agenda, they should go and re-negotiate a deadline
with ICANN, not come to the DNSO demanding a last-minute meeting and a
revised application totally different from the one the DNSO arrived at
through hard-won consensus. The January meeting is properly a
pre-submission wrap-up for the on-going DNSO, not the beginning of a new
process to please one contingent. And again, no one can reasonably claim
that they didn't know what was going on or that they weren't prepared.
No, what they are doing is consciously manipulating the DNSO in order to
get their way. That's clear. The question is whether the DNSO is going
to play their game.