>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:20:08 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Kevin J.
Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From rspab.com!CONNOLLK Fri Feb 12 16:20:07 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from firewall.rspab.com(NY1.rspab.com[208.240.223.26]) (3165
bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:20:07 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from gw1.rspab.com (unverified) by firewall.rspab.com
> (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with SMTP id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:24:28 -0500
>Received: from RS5DOM-Message_Server by gw1.rspab.com
> with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:18:55 -0500
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:16:38 -0500
>From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS -Reply -Reply -Reply
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>This is a major misunderstanding of the difference between mediation and =
>arbitration. Mediation is by its nature non-coercive. The regime says =
>:"Thou shalt talk with/email to the mediator." It does not say "Thou =
>shalt obey the mediator."
>
>ADR is an important sop for the international community. If we go so far =
>as to reject mediation -- which is essentially non-coercive -- we may well =
>end up with arbitration.
>
>This is a political choice. Given that we're going to be stuck with ADR =
>of some form or other, domain name holders do far better to accept =
>mediation than to run the risk of an arbitration regime.
>
>KJC
>
>>>> "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/12/99 04:11pm >>>
>
>Mandatory Arbitration, Mandatory Mediation - nothing really but a =
>different
>flavor. The point is the word Mandatory.
>
>That is what makes this flavor leave such a bad taste in my mouth.
>
>
>
>On 12-Feb-99 Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>> Mr. Walsh,
>> =20
>> You've misstated my position.
>> =20
>> I am opposed to mandatory arbitration. I am in favor of mandatory =
>mediation
>> so long as it does not require face to face meetings outside theregistra=
>nt's
>> locality.
>> =20
>> KJC.2
>----------------------------------
>E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 12-Feb-99
>Time: 13:07:26
>----------------------------------
>"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
>of lawyers, hungry as locusts."=20
>- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
>**********************************************************************
>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>**********************************************************************
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
