 |
Request for Reconsideration
99-1 |
From:
Eric Brunner [brunner@world.std.com]
Sent:
Thursday, January 13, 2000 5:52 PM
To:
Andrew McLaughlin
Cc:
Steve Metalitz; Hans Kraaijenbrink; Ken Fockler;
Amadeu
Abril i Abril; Louis Touton; rpwgough@aol.com;
brunner@world.std.com
Subject:
Re: Reconsideration Request 99-1
Andrew,
The
following is a response to both the Reconsideration Committee's questions
and to
the answers offered by Mr. Steve Metalitz.
The
questions and the answer labor under an initial severe misconception:
There
has been no application for individual membership from Messrs. Brunner
and
Gough because the IIPC is a constituent group, not two individuals as
both
question and response assert.
Comment:
Individual
membership completely marginalizes the concerns on Indigenous IP.
The
questions and the answer labor under a second severe misconception:
A test
for membership was applied at Berlin to the IIPC as a constituent
group,
sometime between May 25th and May 27th. This test has not yet been
disclosed.
For comparison purposes, the DNRC as a constituent group, also
applied
for membership during the same period. The Reconsideration Request
seeks
inter alia to discover the specific test the IIPC failed as a body,
making
it unqualified for member status at that time.
Comment:
The
discriminatory application of objective criteria, or the concealment of
application
of subjective criteria, is clearly a potential problem present
in the
conduct of the IPC, and appears to continue into the present.
Third,
with respect to the role of the DNRC within the IPC, most importantly,
what is
their separate role vis-a-vis voting and selection of board seats?
Is the
formal status of the DNRC more than equal to the formal status proposed
to the
IIPC at that time?
Comment:
Indigenous
IP issues typically are marginalized within groups that are made
up of
individuals and entities that have a stake in the prevailing intellectual
property
legal structure. The issues are very different for Indigenous peoples.
Unfortunately,
if non-indigenous peoples find they are unable to force
Indigenous
IP into one of the existing IP frameworks, they ignore the issues
altogether
as irrelevant.
Therefore,
the inclusion of the IIPC within the larger group must be in a
manner
which addresses this marginalization and gives the group a legitimate
voice.
Otherwise the remedy offered is merely a placebo.
I hope
that the Committee will take the opportunity to restate the questions,
and
that Mr. Metalitz et alia will take the opportunity to respond to the
restated
questions.
We shall
be happy to offer a merits case for the underlying cause of action,
equitable
inclusion of Indigenous Intellectual Property in the institutional
structure
of ICANN, and have prepared an overview of the Intellectual Property
of
Indigenous Peoples (attached) to familiarize the members of the Committee
with
the subject matter.
Sincerely,
Eric
Brunner (and Bob Gough)
initiators
of Request 99-1,
for the
(Indigenous) Intellectual Property Constituency proposing group