Re: [wg-review] [IDNO] OR [IDNH] addendum

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Chris McElroy wrote:
> 

<snip>

> But I agree, IF the UDRP had been drafted while individuals had some say-so
> in the process AND there was an appeals process, there would be no problem
> with it.

Perhaps, if the UDRP was a working document (or, a work in progress, or,
however people want to define it, semantically), subject to ongoing
revision, incorporating discussion in the Internet community, and, input
from, and, feedback involving, the Internet community, the UDRP would be
removed from the ivory tower, and, would become a useful and meaningful,
and, importantly, equitable, instrument.

It is much the same as Acts of parliament, and, the software involved in
software engineering; both are subject to maintenance, and, to, revision
and modification.

So, also, should the UDRP be continually revised, and, modified as
needed, to ensure that it better performs its purpose, instead of
defeating its perceived purpose.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html