Request for Reconsideration 99-1
Response from Eric Brunner
Date: January 13, 2000



From: Eric Brunner []

Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 5:52 PM

To: Andrew McLaughlin

Cc: Steve Metalitz; Hans Kraaijenbrink; Ken Fockler;

Amadeu Abril i Abril; Louis Touton;;

Subject: Re: Reconsideration Request 99-1



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.



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.



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?



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.



Eric Brunner (and Bob Gough)

initiators of Request 99-1,

for the (Indigenous) Intellectual Property Constituency proposing group