Eric and all, Eric Brunner wrote: > We have a document addressing one aspect of your (2)(b), available at > http://www.world.std.com/~iipc. > > We expect to have our original, which can be found on the WIPO RFC3 > comments page (March 11th), and supporting texts also at the iipc site > by end-of-week. > > At a slight risk of seeming inflamatory, WIPO forgot it held a roundtable > last fall on Indigenous Intellectual Property/Heritage, forgot it is a > part of the UN system (ILO, FAO, UNESCO, UNHRC unreferenced), and appears > to think "no dogs or indians" is an acceptable way to define parties with > standing in any system of internet governance. The answer to your (3) is > that WIPO ignored our comments. WIPO alone with ICANN is fairly well known for ignoring comments and the will of the Stakeholders. This is very well documented at this point. > > > Cheers, > Eric > > At 11:16 PM 5/9/99 BST, S.A.Rudich wrote: > >dear sirs/madams > > > >1) can anyone explain me which are the main differences between the > >RFC_3 and the FINAL report? > > > >2) I found the web pages of mr Froomkin and mr Gerk criticising the > >WIPO RFC_3 and the final report repactively. Can anyone tell me any > >other published critic against the WIPO? > > > >3) there is any answer to these critics (either by the WIPO itself or > >anyone else)? > > > > > >THANKS > >s. rudich > > > > > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
