[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Administrivia (penultimate)
Since, if I understand correctly, the abstainers were voting country groups and
the 'no's large groups of corporate interests, whilst the 'yes' were largely
industry interests, what prognostications do you have for the outcome?
Naively, I would have thought that the 'no's' have it.
Nobody has yet convincingly answered the question as to how the global integrity
of a uniquely specific naming system can be compromised with the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of national jurisdictions, which countries affurm they
will maintain (US ipso facto, and see the WIPO SCT studies being bandied about).
If this comment appears more closely related to WG-B, it also appears to underly
the reservations of the 'no's above.
Eric Brunner wrote:
> Oki all,
> My informal tally is YES (45), NO (19), ABSTAIN (3), with nothing heard from
> Tony, Amar, Javier, Jim, Kent (who all authored or co-signed Position Papers
> other than C).
> My original prognostication was:
> Total: 50-45 "yes", 12-17 "no" votes, and 40 non-voting.
> A 3-1 or 4-1 margin with over 50% of the participants participating.
> Right now the margin is 2.37 to 1. I hoped for better, but milage varries.