That permission, energetically argued over at great length and never really
consensualized, was seen as a means of allowing individuals with more than
one expertise to participate in the work of various committees so that the
variety of their expertise would not be constrained and lost. It was not
seen as a permission for the same interest to acquire a vote
disproportionate with their actual size, which is what is being permitted in
the very specific case of the trademark people.
No one, to my recollection, raised objections to the presence of Martin
Schwimmer at the Monterrey meeting; one person, speaking deferentially,
posed no threat. But when his organization submits a competing proposal for
application as the DNSO, an outrageous action on the face of it because
neither the INTA nor even the entire trademarks lobby can reasonably claim
to represent the DNS, or even be more than casually affected by it, then
there must be objections. If Mr. Schwimmer had presented his proposal at
Monterrey, we would have seen easily the true nature of it from the response
in the participants to it; but it was withheld, for this very reason, in
order to escape from censure by the participants, and is presented later, in
private, to a small group whom the INTA is careful to cultivate. These are
the tactics of devious and dishonest lawyers. They are intended to acquire
undeserved influence, and avoid the natural reaction against their
unreasonable demands.
You have no justification for negotiating either an application or bylaws
with the INTA or any other trademark group, nor any other special interest
group for that matter. You do it because you have fallen under their sway.
They have persuaded you. In short, they have manipulated you. Indeed, that
is their job, that is their training, that is their profession, and you,
because you haven't the experience to remain unmoved in the face of it, as
they would if they were in your shoes, have succumbed. Since you are no
longer capable of appreciating their tactics and strategy for what they are,
others will in the end be forced to put things back in their true
perspective and back on course. That course being the organization of a
NewCo from the many and varied interests of the Internet, and primarily from
those who created the Internet, as well as the users, all the users, and not
particularly a contingent of lawyers paid by businesses to secure them an
unfair and undeserved advantage.
> As a particular example, AT&T is an ISP, a busines, a trademark
> holder, and could be a registrar. By our document it could be a
> member of each of those constituencies. That does not mean it gets
> to stack anything -- it merely gets to be a member in each of those
> constituencies, which is perfectly reasonable, since by any measure
> it has a legitimate interest in every one. In any dnso wide vote it
> still gets just one vote; it gets to vote in any constituency-level
> vote for any constituency of which it is a member.
And in each one in which it is a member? And will, together with other
similar corporations, control the vote of not only the businesses
constituency, but the trademarks constituency as well, and perhaps
eventually the registrars constituency and the ISPs constituency, and their
seats on the Names Council? While the users of the Internet have only their
one voice as individuals? If that's your vision of Internet democracy, or
any other kind, then all I can say is that the users of the Internet will
fight you, and hopefully win, since they are a great majority.
> > > You are saying that agencies representing trademark owners should be
> > > excluded.
> >
> > What I said is what I said. Not what you say I said. If you don't mind.
>
> Indeed. And the meaning of what you said was clearly that they
> should be excluded.
No one mentioned exclusion until the INTA proposed it in their application.
That is a fact. You will not change that by your dishonest portrayal of me
as the excluder. You attack me for proposing the exclusion of the trademark
lawyers as a constituency, separate from the businesses who pay their wages,
yet you entertain the proposal of the INTA, which is that the users of the
Internet be excluded from the DNSO. There is nothing that can politely be
said of someone who takes this position, Kent, and I am trying to refrain
from insults and expletives here.
> > However, my reply to their proposal, which attempts to exclude persons and
> > entities that they don't consider legitimate, is that they should be
> > excluded
>
> Here you say it again. You go on to qualify it by saying ", at least
> etc etc", but the bottom line is that you are taking an exclusionary
> stance, which is precisely what you are accusing them of.
As I said before, those who attempt to exclude, or employ any other tactics
that are undemocratic, as they INTA are doing, should be excluded, or in any
case kept from having their way. No one objects to Mr. Schwimmer and Mr.
Hetzler when they come as individuals to a meeting. But they cannot be
alowed to manipulate the DNSO for unfair purposes. That must be excluded.
However, this is not the real question here, because you are not arguing
against the exclusion of the trademark people. Quite to the contrary, you
are at dinner with them. You have invited them to join the drafting team.
You are changing the consensus application that the participants, myself
included, worked hard to forge. What you are doing is discussing with the
trademark people how to exclude the users, that is the clear intent of their
proposal. So in reality you are being a hypocrite here, since it is you,
yourself, who at this very moment are devising, together with the INTA, the
ways of excluding the users from the DNSO. That is why you are making such a
big thing out of the question of exclusion. As a smokescreen. As the offense
which is supposed to be the best defense. Because exclusion of the users is
what you are doing, apparently what you, in collaboration with the INTA,
want. Well, all that can be said to that, Mr. Crispin, is let the best man
win. If you and the INTA will try to exclude us, we will fight back and try
to exclude, or at least silence, you. Do you get it now, Mr. Crispin? We
will not be tricked. We are not fools. You will not exclude us without a
fight. And we may win. Consider that. Your fancy INTA lawyers may not be
quite as all-powerful as you seem to think. Be forewarned. If you side with
them against the users, and we win the fight, you may be thrust aside, and
the DNSO with you, together with the trademark people. Be careful.
> >, at least from having any power beyond that of simple domain-name
> > holders, and that they certainly shouldn't have a whole constituency for
> > themselves, lawyers representing businesses in the business constituency.
>
> The issue of whether there should be a trademark constituency was
> discussed at Barcelona. The consensus was that there should be.
> there were no trademark people there making that case -- it was
> something that most people there agreed to, independent of any
> pressure by any "trademark lobby".
>
> The Monterrey meeting continued with that structure. So, while you
> may personally dislike the idea that trademark interests form a
> constituency, most people in the dnso effort to date do not agree
> with you.
That was before they had presented a proposal to exclude the users and set
up a corporate dictatorship within the DNSO. By doing that, they risk losing
their DNSO constituency. People were inclined to be generous with them,
because they weren't yet perceived as a threat. Now that they have made
their threat, everything is changed.
But what is the point of pursuing this time-wasting exchange? The sides are
drawn. For whatever reasons, you apparently now defend the trademark
interests and big business in their effort to exclude the users from the
DNSO and control it for their purposes. Since that's where you stand, and I
stand on the other side, we haven't much left to say to each other. Let the
best man win.