Esther,
> Michael Sondow said there were several dissents. Someone else
> (Gurry?) said something (I think), and I asked about who else
> dissented, because I know only about Froomkin, and I'd be interested
> to hear more (rather than vague assertions). Only one dissent among
> WIPO's own experts, that is....
If you really want consensus by acclamation, why not say so and
dispense with all this 'representative' stuff? My own reaction is
that Dr F made such an excellent case for further consideration of
the implications, that there was hardly any more one could say.
Today, he wrote:
> Shortly after the close of the comment period this
> Friday, March 12, WIPO will submit a revised version of its plan to
> ICANN, the Internet Corporation on Assigned Names and Numbers.
Rather than fret about 'vague assertions' of how many of WIPOs
'own experts' (interesting phrase, that) had objections, I'd be
pleased if ICANN for its part, tries to determine if those objections
are unworkably vague. At the very least, that effort might help the
rest of us understand what the Board's priorities are. Or would you
rather we shrug it off: Eh, ICANN is only one administrative outfit
anyhow?
kerry
