2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight?
Why not also invite professional organizations with technical expertise,
international scope, and experience with the standards process. The most
obvious two candidates are:
The ACM
The IEEE
Additional: Proposed members to be removed from POC
WIPO - inappropriate UN involvement; single sided advocates shouldn't
be part of the adjudication process even in the role of setting
up slanted rules. [At this rate why not include make-work for
ILO, WHO, and all those other League bureaucracies which are
about as far from "private sector" administration as you can
get.] Possible PAB role if it can get its trademark
registry to
be truly effective, but possible international treaty
implications,
participation should be placed on hold for now.
INTA - no demonstrated technical competence, asserting "rights" never
before claimed with precedence in any other media. Highly
dubious the assertions will last under court test in democratic
countries. Human rights, free speech including parody being
ignored at best, threatened at worst. This has no place in
the Internet tradition. Pernicious special interest group,
should be relegated to the PAB.
IANA - no mandate; guru and students should not set public policy in a
legally binding and coercive context. Possible PAB role.
ITU - Section 6.g.vi. Beyond the scope of the ITU as an
organization of
member states. No objection to the Depository role.
Respectfully,
Rob DuWors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. DuWors <mailto:rjd@csgroup.com> tel:+1.440.255.2869
Connected Systems Group 7638 Aster Drive, Mentor, Ohio 44060