<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] WIPO II
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] WIPO II
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:36:54 -0500
- Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <6.0.1.1.2.20040126083705.051e7eb0@mail.beach.net>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040126083705.051e7eb0@mail.beach.net>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
On 1/26/2004 11:53 AM Robert F. Connelly noted that:
Dear Registrars: This morning during the WIPO II teleconference, I
relayed a grievance presented by several of our members that some of the
vendors for panels under the UDRP are though to lack objectivity and to
favor the arguments of the challenger as opposed to the respondents.
Jonathan Cohen, the Chair of the "committee" disagreed. He has offered
to present his figures at our meeting in Rome. Will such be of interest
to our members in attendance?
An objective discussion of the facts would be most interesting. Are
their also specific policy implications to this discussion?
--
Regards,
-rwr
"In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one
indispensable condition for social progress."
- Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|