At 2/15/99, 05:55 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>I see a lot of thrashing to and fro on "intentions." I choose to believe
>that all of us involved, and working, sometimes very long hours, have good
>intentions, but still sometimes misunderstand or mistrust each other.
>
>I'm for working on a single draft. Before Singapore, After Singapore.... but
>working.
>
>...let's continue to cut each other some slack and keep working together
>toward creating a single approach which reflects broadness, depth,
>globalness, inclusiveness, etc....in short, the DNSO.
Hello Marilyn,
We certainly have similar stated goals. However,
my experience does not match our common objectives.
For example:
When people complained about the "Implementation
Preview" clause in the Paris draft, AIP and NSI
immediately drafted a new revision. It was posted
for public comment, and then amended into the
Paris Draft.
When BMW supporters complained that the Paris
Draft would not be able to make timely decisions,
Antony Van Couvering immediately drafted some
revisions in an attempt to address these concerns.
So far, so good.
Now, when the Paris Draft supporters complained
that the BMW draft was top heavy and unfair to
minority interests on our conference call on
Saturday, Kent Crispin responded by disparaging
the signatories to the Paris Draft. Then, he
confused everyone by describing the BMW draft
in inaccurate ways.
Once again I ask -- does the business/trademark
community condone this activity?
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 4:47 PM
>To: DNSO.association.org
>Subject: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems
