Re: exodus from the wipo list

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Professor Mueller:

The distinction did not even occur to me.  I don't understand why those
expressions were appropriate for one list but not the other.  All these
lists are open to the public.  All these discussions are public.
Compromise based on an acknowledgement of the various stakeholder's rights
is necessary for WIPO's endeavours and IFWP's endeavours.  

For New IANA to work, the various stakeholders - ISPs, registries,
registrars, users, people who who think ST:NG was better than the original
Star Trek (I'm in that group), people who like the first show better - we
are supposed to be talking to each other to build consensus.  A lot of
people seem to be coming from their own [whatever]-centric views.  The way
to get them to the center is through fact-based discussion.  I don't think
factionalism (where we call each other clowns and cry-babies) is the way to
a stable system.

My posting was not personal.  I've read a lot of postings in these lists
that confront and contradict beliefs I've held, and I work hard to
integrate them into my position.  Some of the statements I read here I
believe are incorrect and that if I had an opportunity to talk to them, I
might be able to move their position a little (as they would change my
position a little).  I don't think they disagree with me becuase they are
stupid or evil or clowns or crybabies.  I think in part they are uninformed
or misinformed because they get second-hand mischaracterizations of
opposing viewpoints, and are encouraged to adopt cartoon-like images of the
opposing factions.

OK, how can personal users, commercial interests, non-commercial interests,
Nike Art Shops and IBM Bikinis co-exist on the Internet?

mbs



At 12:19 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Neither of these expressions were used on the WIPO list. Your attempt to
score
>personal points by dragging them into it is part of the problem.
>--MM
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> "CORE should be in there, so should INTA, and NSI, and all the other
clowns"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "we have to kiss the ass of a bunch of powerful but slow crybabies"
>>
>> in further postings.
>>
>> We have to build a consensus that recognizes the validity of the
>> motivations of all the entities involved here.  Registrars, would-be
>> registrars, domain name owners, trademark owners (and remember, there is a
>> huge overlap between those two groups), users ranging from the home
>> researcher (see Ms. Kleiman's postings) to the tele-medicine practitioner
>> (see Mr. Sondow's postings).
>>
>> It seems that the DNS is flexible enough that we can design a system where
>> domain name owners can utilize similar names without causing a likelihood
>> of confusion (or wrecking the stability of the world's various trademark
>> systems), where a small businessman can build a brand without having to pay
>> a toll to a name speculator, where web sites in different countries can
>> co-exist without harming each other, where wannabe registrars don't build
>> proprietary empires based on the tax-payer dollar.  I don't know how to
>> draft technical guidelines for such a system - I look to those who can to
>> teach the rest of us.
>>
>> I feel that someone should be humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."
>>
>> Everybody involved in this process is smart, everybody here has a right to
>> earn a living, everybody here is entitled to due process (even you non-U.S.
>> people).  No one is a clown, no one is greedy (at least not the people on
>> these lists).  Everybody can keep on doing what they were doing in the new
>> DNS if they agree not to trample over everybody else's rights.
>>
>> Now get back to work.
>>
>> At 10:46 AM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> >No member of this list can have failed to notice the mass exodus of
>> >various participants from this list. Perhaps it is due entirely to the
>> >growing volume of messages, but I suspect that the rancorous tone and
>> >trivial bickering of many messages is also responsible. My experience
>> >is that the first people to go are often the ones whose participation
>> >is most needed to advance discussion and reach a better understanding
>> >of the issues.
>> >
>> >I would ask every participant to elevate the tone of discussion, to
>> >cease dragging personal disagreements and attacks into the discussion,
>> >and to avoid unthinking cross-postings.
>> >
>> >--MM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>