NCUC elections for Chair and EC

[Dan Krimm]

On Thu, November 17, 2011 9:57 am, Alain Berranger wrote:

> .... Recent statements made on NCSG-Discuss list are literal
> trials of intentions (like we are recruiting new members for voting
> purposes only! or if our chair remains silent on NCSG, it means this and
> that...).

I would not dispute that such comments can be interpreted as "trials of
intentions" -- that's exactly what they are, and as the author of such
comments I confirm that I meant them that way.

There is quite simply an impression floating around NCUC that NPOC exists
as a sort of "one-issue" group devoted overwhelmingly to advancing
maximalist trademark policy at ICANN (in opposition to NCUC's historical
consensus on these issues -- we spent a lot of time and effort fighting
CSG/BC and IPC on trademark issues, looking for a more balanced approach
-- I speak as an individual trademark holder, myself), and ultimately
wouldn't care much about anything else, and may be fairly ruthless in its
efforts to advance such policy (as other advocates for trademark
maximalism tend to be).

There is also suspicion that ICANN staff or others sympathetic to CSG/IPC
agendas (and correspondingly unsympathetic to NCUC positions) may have put
these folks up to it, as a specific strategy to dilute, distract, confuse
or usurp NCSG policy in these matters.  After all, as IPC is now part of
CSG, it seems that is where such advocates ought to belong, in the current
GNSO taxonomy.

As a factual matter, if these impressions are incorrect then one would do
well to confront them on the merits and shed a little light on the matter,
because these impressions have been there from early on.  In the absence
of such communications, the suspicions simply grow deeper over time, short
of tangible action demonstrating something different (such as a productive
EC meeting -- such things are important for other members to know, even if
we did not participate directly).

Given NPOC's trademark-related positions, perhaps you may think of this as
a branding issue, one where just as a practical matter NPOC's "PR
department" needs to do some damage control.  Because the damage is real,
regardless of whether it is based on substance or not.

Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.