RE: [tor-udrp] Re: UDRP Review Task Force
Please look on your geographic representativeness of the
TF as a whole, and then give me some suggestions.
Actually, I have a candid question: do you try to preserve
some equilibrum between people from countries using case law
and Roman law ?
Thank you, making choice is exhausting.
> From CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com Wed Aug 15 22:45 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <40A2445D16739943A85921606C3E6CB99B9BD4@MAIL1K>
> From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> To: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@syr.edu>, Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr,
> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [tor-udrp] Re: UDRP Review Task Force
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:38:53 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Milton I am in complete agreement.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:43 PM
> To: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: [tor-udrp] Re: UDRP Review Task Force
> I'm a great believer in flexibility, but we adopted a specific set of
> guidelines as to how this Task Force would be constituted.
> We can't accept 4 members from one constituency without having
> similar openness to other constituencies. The NCDNHC in
> particular has a very global membership and had problems
> narrowing it down to one.
> If it raises "diplomatic" problems for YOU to pick one of the four,
> imagine how WE feel. And of course we have no more knowledge
> of the individuals, probably less, than your own constituency.
> I can't speak for Caroline but if you want us to decide, I would
> suggest that we pick one of the four based on the geographic
> representativeness of the TF as a whole. You can make it clear to the
> other three that they can consult among themselves and develop a
> position jointly. But for voting and official participation purposes,
> we need to have one.
> >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 08/15/01
> 04:21PM >>>
> I have no competencies to decide, not to mention how difficult
> it could be for diplomatic reasons.
> My first suggestion would be, even if it is against the ToR at
> to take all candidates (or at least 3 for 3 coutries), which would
> create you a genuine worldwide group. I noted that Stuart Lynn
> did proceed this way when the NC suggested him more candidates
> than requested to the new TLD Presidential TF.
> My second suggestion is to let you decide, and fit your perspective.
> The last one would be to ask all 4 candidates to work collectively with
> you, and have one speaking on behalf of 4 working together. However
> this may be quite irrealistic for people who apparently do not know
> themselves, and may not necessarily form a working team.
> Please let me know,
> > From CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com Wed Aug 15 21:03 MET 2001
> > Message-ID: <40A2445D16739943A85921606C3E6CB99B9BC8@MAIL1K>
> > From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
> > To: "'Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr'"
> > <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> > Cc: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
> > Subject: UDRP Review Task Force
> > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:56:28 -0500
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Elisabeth, we only need one ccTLD representative for this Task Force. Do
> > you want us to look at what our geographic makeup is of the nominees for
> > other categories and pick one of your three based on where we appear
> > or would you rather decide?
> > Caroline G. Chicoine
> > Thompson Coburn LLP
> > One Firstar Plaza
> > St. Louis, MO. 63101
> > (314) 552-6499
> > (314) 552-7499 (fax)
> > firstname.lastname@example.org