<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
- To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 05:00:11 -0700
I think there was at least support, if not agreement, that cost of
verification is unnecessary (for registry and claimant) unless the legal
right is challenged. So it must be subject to verification, but need
not actually be verified unless a challenge.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:34 PM
To: PRO WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
hi,
On 24 maj 2007, at 02.54, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
>
> Second, sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 seem generally the same principle, I
> would delete 4.1.6 or characterize it as an Alternative View.
>
>
I agree there is overlap, but i would be more comfortable with
leaving 4.1.6 and removing 4.1.3 as 4.1.6 is the stronger statement
and I can think of no case or reason why a claimant to Legal Rights
would not have to be able to have their claims verified.
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|