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 > -----------------------