It renders well the idea that the merits of having a review process are conceptually independent from the merits of various policy positions that may or may not be articulated during such a process. It makes an elegant case for (more) evidence-based policy-making. It ties it to good governance and already existing processes. I'm happy to support this and i thank the authors for their good work and precious time. Nicolas On 7/13/2011 4:48 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > From Danny Younger: > > There is one line in the Statement, however, which is inaccurate -- > namely the claim that the UDRP has not been previously reviewed. From > 2001 to 2003, a review of the UDRP was conducted by the DNSO. > This "UDRP Review and Evaluation" continued until the Chair of the > Task Force (the IPC's J. Scott Evans) resigned under mysterious > circumstances -- see > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/ > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00575.html>msg00575.html > <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00575.html> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -