Reconsideration Request 99-1
Response of Steve Metalitz
Date: January 10, 2000


 

From: Steve Metalitz [metalitz@iipa.com]

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 5:52 PM

To: 'mclaughlin@pobox.com'; Steve Metalitz

Cc: Hans Kraaijenbrink; Ken Fockler; Amadeu Abril;

Eric Brunner; Robert Gough; Louis Touton

Subject: RE: Reconsideration Request 99-1

TO: Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN

 

FM: Steve Metalitz, Interim President, IPC

 

RE: Reconsideration Request 99-1

 

DT: January 10, 2000

 

This responds to your e-mail of December 27, 1999, referring to the
reconsideration request of Eric Brunner and Bob Gough dated June 25, 1999.

 

I have no personal knowledge of the events from which the

reconsideration request arose. However, in preparing this memo I have spoken

or corresponded with several of the IPC members who were involved and

reviewed some e-mail traffic they have shared with me.

In response to the three specific questions posed in your mail:

 

(1) Does the IPC allow only non-member "observer" or other inferior

status to Messrs. Brunner and Gough (and other persons interested in the

protection of Indigenous IP rights)? If so, on what basis?

 

Neither Mr. Brunner nor Mr. Gough has applied for membership in the

Intellectual Property Constituency, although they were invited to do so as

long ago as May 26, 1999. Neither the Secretary of the IPC, nor the

Membership Committee chair, reports receiving any request for membership

information from either individual, nor, as far as can be ascertained, from

any organization with which they are associated.

 

If they were to apply, the IPC would not restrict them to "non-member

'observer' or other inferior status." Their application (and that of any

organization with which they are affiliated) would be considered based on

the criteria appearing in the IPC Bylaws (see

http://ipc.songbird.com/IPC_Bylaws_dec_15_correct.htm). Please note that

under these by-laws, an individual is entitled to Category 1 membership,

which is non-voting but otherwise fully participatory. Organizations may be

eligible for Category 1, 2 or 3 membership, depending on the application of

the criteria contained in the Bylaws. This distinction between individuals

and organizations applies without regard to the views or interests of the

individuals involved. Except for voting rights and the ability to nominate

candidates for officer positions and Names Council representatives, Category

1 members enjoy rights and privileges within the IPC equal to those of

Category 2 or Category 3 members.

 

With regard to "other persons interested in the protection of

Indigenous IP rights," we are unable to ascertain from the membership

application documents whether any such persons have applied for IPC

membership. If they do apply, their applications will be handled as

described above.

 

(2) Have the membership criteria for the IPC been applied consistently?

Have individuals interested in the protection of Indigenous IP rights been

accorded different or unusual treatment under the rules of the IPC?

 

The membership criteria for the IPC have been applied consistently to the

best of my knowledge. My inquiries have yielded no evidence whatsoever that

individuals interested in the protection of Indigenous IP rights have

received any different treatment than any other individuals under the rules

of the IPC.

 

(3) Is there any IPC policy that would prevent persons interested in

the protection of Indigenous IP Rights from participating fully in

the activities and deliberations of the IPC?

 

There is no policy that would prevent persons interested in the protection

of Indigenous IP rights from participating fully in the activities and

deliberations of the IPC. If such persons participate as individuals, they

would qualify as Category 1 members, which is a non-voting status. If such

persons formed an organization and applied for IPC membership on that basis,

their application would be considered in accordance with the Bylaws, and

their voting participation would turn on the category into which they fell.

In either case, their applications would be welcomed and would be evaluated

impartially and without discrimination.

 

Your memo did not ask for any comment on any aspect of the

reconsideration request itself, nor on the relief sought. If such comments

would be useful to the Committee on Reconsideration in responding to the

request, please let me know and I will endeavor to provide them or to see to

it that they are provided.