> Right, but WSFS then seemed to loudly proclaim that they have _no ability_ to enforce that each Worldcon obeys the rules?
Where are you seeing that the WSFS has loudly proclaimed that?
As far as I know, there isn't even anyone who is authorized to make statements on behalf of the WSFS with the exception of getting a resolution passed at the business meeting at Worldcon, but that doesn't happen until August.
> The WSFS Constitution depends upon its members to abide by it. There is no external enforcement mechanism. There is no Strong Man who comes in and imposes their will upon committees. And the members have nearly always rejected anything that would make it more enforceable.
(It’s hard to point to specific links, because a lot of it is back and forth conversations that have taken place over several days)
I assume Kevin Standlee is a reasonable authority on this because of this infodump:
> Further disclaimers: I am the current Chair of the legal entity that owns the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society (“Worldcon,” “Hugo Award,” etc.)
The concern from the IP attorneys I was following on Bluesky was that the fact that the WSFS cannot require that the Worldcon follow its rules, puts the trademark at some level of risk. That is, if WSFS and the MPC cannot effectively police the trademark there is a risk that they could lose the trademark.
Which is why is position on the MPC is relevant, in this context. The lack of _ability_ to enforce the WSFS constitution, _threatens the validity_ of the trademark.
But, that's a good correction, that it's not a formal position of the WSFS as a body.
Where are you seeing that the WSFS has loudly proclaimed that?
As far as I know, there isn't even anyone who is authorized to make statements on behalf of the WSFS with the exception of getting a resolution passed at the business meeting at Worldcon, but that doesn't happen until August.