RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll-results update - Excel file this time
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll-results update - Excel file this time
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:57:12 -0400
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Eric Brunner-Williams [ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Similarly, Amadeu and Liz have not clicked on the doodle. Not that it
> really is novel information gained or lost by the act, or the non-act.
Ah, I see that it's "spin time."
Let's face two facts here:
1) as in all these situations, many people will not vote.
2) whatever the results, professional spinmeisters will intervene to put the
best possible face on the results for their own proposal (present company
excepted, of course)
In the spirit of spin, let me point out a few things.
I can echo Jeff N. observation that there is no consensus on a single proposal.
However, we can say a few things:
First, the most popular proposal, in terms of the sum of "supports" and "live
withs" is Free Trade.
there seems to be consensus against the IPC proposal, and there is consensus
that no one wants the Board motion or DAGv4, although a surprisingly
significant minority could "live with it"
Of the JN and FT proposals (and kudos to the marketeer who came up
with "Free Trade" over "Neo-Liberal" or "Keynes-is-Dead" choices), the
following are two-fers:
This removes some of the clarity.
Of course, the co-chairs would feel ignored if I didn't point out that
the JN and FT proposals share the amusing properties of both placing
trust in the very parties that trademarks holders have been the most
critical of over the past 15 years, and having an exemption for
applications by trademark holders. As intended, we've no way of
weighing working group participant views on policy choices for
standard and community-based applications, and are comparing apples
and apples plus some oranges.