>Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the
>context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a
>trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC,
>and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myself are
>very real, non theoretical entities. We have participated actively in the
>process. We are not ghosts or figments of your imagination. We have put
>forward specific, real proposals: to have individual memberships or, if that
>is not possible, to at least balance the constituencies. Why hasn't this
>happened?
>
>The answer to the "why not" is simple: The TM interests have more time and
>money to spend on this, and they have courted (and been courted by) other key
>participants in the dnso process to form an alliance which guarantees each
>other representation while excluding others who might challenge or threaten
>their dominance. Political relationships can indeed be "complicated," but as
>someone who studies them for a living I can tell you that this one is not
>complicated at all.
Since DNRC has an interest in the interaction between trademarks and domain
names, i have asked whether we will be included in the formation of the
"trademark constituency" seemingly being formed by INTA. I have not yet
received a response. Just an FYI.
