<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-03-22 11:44, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh0DvY-Dfo55QDLHdCUoYt+qGK6t72p7LO68NQca1aTxww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">(...)<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, while you may vociferously object to it, you may want
to consider that what is considered ham-handed Staff
intervention by some might be considered by others that
finally someone -- even occasionally and partially -- is
asserting the interests of non-domain-owning end-users. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh0DvY-Dfo55QDLHdCUoYt+qGK6t72p7LO68NQca1aTxww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">As Alan Greenberg noted in his analysis of the
staff action on the TMCH Strawman proposals.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><i style="background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"><font
color="#0000ff"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Although
the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in
terms </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">of
what required policy development), all of the IP
protections that </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">ICANN
will be moving ahead with were supported by the ALAC,
and the </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">one
additional protection that the ALAC explicitly did not
support </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">will
not be implemented.</span></font></i><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Pardon me but I was thinking that non-domain-owning end-users (just
like domain-owning *civil society* end-users) interests' were, in a
non-trivial part, about protecting speech from periodic assault by
expansion of trademark protection. It is, also -- conveniently since
it implies pretty much the same positions on policy areas -- their
interests to ensure that domain names market stays innovative and
competitive and isn't slowed to a crawl or captured by policy tools
that restrict the coming into existence of some names that would
effectively challenge what would otherwise be appropriation of
languages memes (see our closed generic debate, and Avri's cleverer
names variations than mine on just this point).<br>
<br>
I take it that ALAC did not find anything to complain about with
regard strawman's point 4 (the 50 variations) and nothing either
about the "added criminal liability" policy modifications that are
an added burden on innocent prospective domain name registrant from,
say, civil society. I take it you objected to the blocking proposal.<br>
<br>
So, as a -- as of now but may change in the future --
non-domain-owning end-user, member of a civil society (which I
largely take to be ALAC's clientele, forgive my mistake in advance
if that is not the case), I should feel that my interests were well
asserted in this matter and should be glad of ALAC's work ? I would
more readily fire you (vote you out) as incapable of coming to grasp
with what my interest are, let alone asserting them, then i would
feel represented or asserted in this matter. <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>