Fwd: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
Mikki Barry (ooblick@netpolicy.com)
Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:26:07 -0500
>X-Sender: ooblick@minion.netpolicy.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:08:43 -0500
>To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>
>From: Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>
>Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-ifwp-15488P@lists.interactivehq.org>
>List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
>List-Owner: <mailto:owner-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org>
>X-Url: <http://www.ifwp.org>
>Reply-To: list@ifwp.org
>X-Message-Id: <v04003a2db2b31f5e394f@[207.87.121.93]>
> <LYR15488-64649-1999.01.01-19.35.47--ooblick#netpolicy.com@lists.interacti
> vehq.org>
> <LYR16085-64647-1999.01.01-18.42.04--karl#cavebear.com@lists.interactivehq
> .org>
>Sender: bounce-ifwp-15488@lists.interactivehq.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>>Why carve out a first class seat for corporations and relegate individuals
>>to the cattle car?
>
>In this case, since the DNSO.org is allowing INTA to determine the bylaws,
>one special interest group with decided bias (that necessarily curtails
>rights of individuals and domain name holders who are not also trademark
>holders) will dictate the "rules" under which all parties must be governed.
>Therefore, it is far worse than first class vs. cattle car. It is
>essentially the equivalent of the original criteria in the United States
>for who gets the vote. Then, it was white males who are also landowners.
>When color and land ownership was eliminated from the equation, those in
>power threw another roadblock out there, i.e. literacy. Then poll taxes,
>etc. etc. Though finally the courts remedied this situation, how many
>people were prevented from voicing their opinions and voting for
>representatives? How different would this country have been if all were
>given a voice and a vote?
>
>This is exactly what is happening here. One special interest group is
>going to dictate the "rules" even though it has a tiny membership when
>compared to domain name holders who are NOT members of INTA and do NOT have
>trademarks. And even those of us who ARE members of INTA have not been
>consulted, nor asked for input to these proposals or these draft bylaws.
>This has the probable effect of giving trademark holders greater rights and
>a greater voice than ISPs, RIRs, public interest groups, individuals, small
>businesses, or anyone else who has not ponied up the 500 dollars plus to be
>a member of INTA, or the 245 dollars plus to own a US trademark (probably
>more in most other countries.)
>
>And why do they have this power? "Because they are large and powerful" is
>not a good enough answer. It lack credibility from every possible level.
>
>Having classes of membership may be a good idea. Having "privileged"
>classes and "plebian" classes is not. We must not allow INTA's bylaws to
>be implemented.
>
>Mikki Barry
>President - DNRC
>Member - INTA
>Trademark Holder
>Domain Name Holder
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>