 |
Reconsideration Request
99-1 |
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
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
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.