Re: [ifwp] Re: Constituencies

Bret A. Fausett (baf@fausett.com)
Wed, 13 Jan 99 22:08:40 -0500


Kent Crispin wrote:
>A private attorney who didn't want to spend the money to be, or
>didn't feel they fit, in one of the other constituencies -- eg, a
>trademark attorney that didn't want to be part of the TM
>constituency. Concretely, maybe Bret Fausett.

Actually, I think the "trademark lawyers who don't want to be a
part of the trademark constituency" should be their own constituency.
I suggest that the new allocation on the Names Council be as follows:

1.  Registries - 3
2.  Registrars - 3
3.  Infrastructure and connectivity providers - 3
4.  Business and other organizations -3
5.  Organizations primarily concerned with
the interests of trademark owners - 3
6. Trademark lawyers who don't want to be
a part of the trademark constituency - 3
7.  At Large - 3

This puts this noble new category on the same footing as
the Registries. The previous 6 registry reps was just too many.

-- Bret