My recollection about the dissent inquiry is that it was sparked by a
question from the audience and that the only person trying to discount
Professor Froomkin as "only one dissent" was the WIPO presenter.
An important footnote came at the end of the presentation. Someone
incorrectly assumed that the WIPO report was final and would be voted on
at the next day's closed ICANN Board meeting. One of the Board members
(either Esther Dyson or Mike Roberts, I think) clarified that the report
was only preliminary and that no ICANN consideration would take place
until after the report was final and "after we have had input from the
DNSO" or something to that effect.
It seemed clear that dissenting views would be able to register their
complaints with ICANN and that the DNSO also would be given the
opportunity to work over the final WIPO document. (At least I hope that's
the case.)
-- Bret
Kerry Miller wrote:
>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.
