Re: exodus from the wipo list

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

I do not think this is a useless discussion if it doesn't go on too much
longer.  The Professor's comments (reprinted below) suggesting that on the
IFWP list it is acceptable to refer to CORE, NSI and INTA as clowns and
trademark interests as crybabies (even those organizations are represented
at IFWP), but not on the WIPO list is of some (not a lot) relevance here in
that it represents the reinforcement of a factionalist view of the process.
 We have to attempt to accomodate all stakeholders of the Internet.
Postings such as the thread entitled "trademark.tmk" is specific and can
lead to useful ideas and consensus.  Postings such as:

	"This is why I go ballistic when the Jim Dixons of the Internet
world--otherwise kind, trustworthy people--advocate accommodating to the TM
interests."

even though you gave reasons for that position, do not seem designed to
lead to consensus.

I await your comments on the trademark.tmk thread.




At 02:29 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I apologize to the list for having to carry on this useless discussion,
but since
>Schwimmer made a private message into a public argument, I think this is a
point
>worth making:
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> The distinction did not even occur to me.  I don't understand why those
>> expressions were appropriate for one list but not the other.
>
>There is a completely different set of people on either list. The IFWP list
>consists of people actively involved in the IFWP deliverations, many of
whom have
>met each other in person at the IFWP events. We know each others'
prejudices and
>we are used to those kinds of expressions.
>
>The WIPO list consists of a much different group of people, lots of them
trademark
>lawyers who are not used to the harsh and messy expressions of Internet email
>lists. I would think that you of all  people would want them to stay
involved. To
>these newbies, or to busy corporate types, most of what goes on on these
lists is
>perceived (mostly correctly, in my opinion)  as noise. The WIPO process is
not the
>same as the IFWP process. Also, for many of these people, English is not
the first
>language, so they may not feel comfortable in a slanging match.
>
>Take a careful look at the names of the people who signed off and where
they came
>from. If you want the WIPO list to degenerate into the same group of people
>arguing with each other that now populates the IFWP list, then keep it up.
You're
>doing a great job.
>--MM
>
>> All these
>> lists are open to the public.  All these discussions are public.
>
>There are many different "publics" in the world.
>
>> My posting was not personal.  I've read a lot of postings in these lists
>
>
>
>
>