FW: WIPO open process?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:edelman@law.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 1:14 PM
> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Cc: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: WIPO open process?
>
>
> Roeland,
>
> You should know that the real-time comment system is not
> intended to be used
> after the meeting concludes!  I suggest your comments would get more
> consideration if forwarded to one of ICANN's standard
> comment-receiving
> addresses.  (More info available at their web site.)
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet and Society
> Harvard Law School
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rmeyer@mhsc.com [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 12:00 PM
> > To: icann-realtime@cyber.law.harvard.edu
> > Cc: bedelman@ix.netcom.com; wseltzer@law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: WIPO open process?
> >
> >
> > FirstName: Roeland
> > LastName: Meyer
> > Company: Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> > boolRemote: 1
> >
> > The "comments" process, wrt the WIPO report, was as open as the IANA
> > process for creating ICANN bylaws. Yes, a comments/suggestion box
> > was available.
> > Yes, all comments were dutifully filed. However, there was
> > absolutely no indication
> > that most of them were read. What is more, there is clear
> > indication the none of them
> > were acted upon. This is an indication of an obstinate process,
> > not a failure of the
> > community to "get it right". It means that ICANN and WIPO have no
> > interest in paying any
> > attention to the *real* community, those of us actually
> > developing, running, and using the
> > Internet, on a day-to-day basis.
> >
> > The WIPO understanding of DNS is strictly from  luser perspective
> > and an ignorant luser at
> > that. As Karl has already stated, this eliminates/hampers many
> > current and new features. I
> > acknowledge the effect that law should have on the internet. In
> > fact, I have recently
> > argued that very point, on the ISOC lists, and have stated that
> > the technical community is guilty
> > of a certain type of arrogance in this regard. However, this does
> > not excuse an equal
> > arrogance on the part of the trademark community (WIPO),
> > exhibited by the WIPO report
> > process.
> >
> > Unlike our bretheren in the academic community, Those of us in
> > the commercial software
> > development community are very well versed in IP and Business
> > law, as it effects our daily
> > revenue stream. Albeit, most of us are not lawyers. We learn such
> > law as a practical daily
> > business requirement (cheaper than calling a $250/hr IP lawyer
> > every five minutes). My point is
> > that some of us are certainly not completely ignorant of
> existing law.
> >
> > I simply can not accept that 100% of the comments/suggestions, in
> > either case (ICANN or WIPO),
> > were invalid, or that they could be ignored and trivialized. To
> > me this indicates a broken
> > process which may, in the final analysis, be irrepairable and
> > should be ignored in its own
> > right.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>