Re: [wg-b] STRONG disagreement

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Mikki's point is important.  When there is not only no consensus, but no
effort at a consensus call, no vote, no nothing, what is the status of
the report?

Is the IPC view not classified as a "dissent"?  

Jamie



Mikki Barry wrote:
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> >Michael D. Palage
> >Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 1:28 PM
> >To: Wg-B@Dnso. Org
> >Subject: [wg-b] WG-B Report
> >
> >
> >I am trying to make sure that I get all the dissents incorporated into the
> >Appendix of the report. The report will be posted shortly.
> 
> The "dissents" and the "report" have NOT been decided upon by this
> working group.  Likely, the IPC proposal is the "dissent" and the
> "report" is that no action should be taken regarding famous marks.
> As such, the IPC proposal is beyond the scope of this working group,
> has not been properly prommulgated and commented by the working group
> membership, and is NOT the report of the IPC.
> 
> This should NOT be in any way, shape or form handed out as a product
> of this working group.

-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================