Re: FW: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

The answer to that is quite simple: don't let the decision on the matter
merely be a "reflection" of the IPCC's desires.  This is why court cases
are so much more in line with objective criteria.  Any decision under the
existing auspices is simply too inlfuenced by the IPCC.

We have been looking at this all wrong, we don't have to spend all of our
energy on producing ICW constituencies if we just minimize who they are up
against. The IPC page section on why the Whois data base is so important is
completely illustrative of the point.

ICANN's mandate, no matter how flawed is specific in regards to creating
consensus. the IPCC by laws are specific in the intention to prevent
consensus.  It is so bald faced it is shocking.

Of course consensus is destroyed when the most poerful single SO in ICANN
is diametrically opposed to it.  The UDRP is the product of purchase by the
IPCC. This is historical fact included in DoC documentation.  We don't need
no UDRP except to fulfill a deal struck in a smoked filled backroom with
money changing hands.

Eager to get back on track, joy is everywhere you look for it!

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:37:24PM -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > Eric Dierker wrote:-
> > The point is we do not need the UDRP.  The courts are better at it.
> >
> > Now with that said, the courts may want the UDRP to lessen their work
> > load.>
> >
> >
> > And to handle small claims. Not everybody has 100K to gamble...:-)
>
> And to deal with the fact that a court case across national boundaries
> with different languages may be a very very complex affair...
>
> In any case, the question of whether we need a UDRP has already been
> settled -- we do.  The question is how to make it better.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

--
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