Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: jeffrey
Date/Time: Wed, November 1, 2000 at 11:21 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: It's clear why the IPC report should read "preliminary"


The disparity of the reviews are awkward at best. Why does the commentary for IOD application item E use descriptors such as "reasonable" if they give an unsatisfactory mark for this item? It's hard to believe that they found nothing actually "good" in the IOD application? Perhaps the same could be said about the ICFTU review. It looks to me like there was one sour reviewer for the IOD application who was clouded by the Names Council's recent rhetoric about pre-registration. Here is an opportunity for the IPC to judge whether IODs pioneering efforts have some merit. Instead of championing the cause of pioneering efforts, which seems to be in keeping with the IPC mission, they have "preliminarily" chosen to side-step the whole issue. In any case, I look forward to the ammendments. Given more time to review the applications, perhaps IPC will recognize that the IOD application warrants their special consideration and even endorsement. Why wouldn't they?  This is right up their alley!!


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy