Re: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes

Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:07:00 -0800

On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 12:42:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 05-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > Excluding TM interests from representation does nothing to further
> > that business case. In fact, it probably weakens it: TM interests
> > are very powerful politically, and are simply "routing around" you --
> > in the network where it matters. I believe that the histrionic
> > exclusionary antics of DNRC, Milton Mueller, and others, are in the
> > long run, probably doing more harm than good to non-trademark
> > interests.
>
> No, Kent. The simple truth is that trademark holders make up a VERY small
> subset of domain name holders. But you want to give this VERY small special
> interest group a much higher footing than their numbers amongst all domain name
> holders really warrants.

You must have a new email address.

Speaking of small special interest groups: DNRC has maybe half a dozen
members, at most. ORSC has maybe two dozen active members. The IFWP
list has a couple dozen active members -- maybe 3 dozen. The
maximum number of individuals involved in the entire IFWP process is
mayb 1000.

On the other hand, INTA has thousands of members by itself.

On that basis alone, INTA cannot be called a "VERY small special
interest group" -- it exceeds in size the entire IFWP at least a few
times over.

Of course, when you factor in matters of economic and political
power, calling INTA a "VERY small special interest group" is
indicative of a complete loss of contact with reality. INTA is a
"very LARGE special interest group". Compared with the other special
interest groups here, most of which *are* "VERY small", INTA is an
absolute giant, by any measure. 

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain