Hi,

I am not personally advocating for thick WHOIS.  I am in fact against it as a matter of personal opinion.

What I am arguing is that the position itself does not make one unqualified for NCSG membership.    I again refer to the model of the NCSG as a broad tent for differing opinions from the non-commercial stakeholders.

I do  think, however, that a good debate on the subject of thick WHOIS  is a good thing for the NCSG.  In fact I would love to see more substantive reasoned  debates on  issues like this on the NCSG list.

a.



On 9 Nov 2010, at 10:10, Kimberley Heitman wrote:

>> Well even if trademarks were the only concern of this newly proposed
>> constituency, I would not think that mattered.
>> 
>> The CSG's IPC is a related to Commercial trademark concerns, while a new
>> NCSG constituency, all things being equal, would be concerned with the Non
>> Commercial aspects of trademarks.  (not being a trademark expert  i will
>> not attempt to distinguish between the two, but it has become apparent even
>> to a non lawyer like myself that the two categories of concerns are
>> distinct)
>> 
>> I think the primary issues to be considered are not the particular issues
>> that group wishes to deal with, but:
>> 
>> - is it composed  non-commercial organizations and individuals, with non
>> commercial members
>> - does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN
>> issues
>> - does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies
>> - is it international in scope
>> 
>> 
>> a.
> 
> Easy to say from the comfort of a democratic country. A thick WHOIS means
> death to dissidents in most of the world. I'm astonished that the commercial
> IP imperatives of the American Red Cross are set to undermine its
> international humanitarian efforts. 
> 
> Red Cross does not need trademarks - its emblems are legally protected by
> other, better, international laws.
> 
> -----------------------
> Kimberley James Heitman
> www.kheitman.com
> -----------------------