<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Kalchev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel@digsys.bg" target="_blank">daniel@digsys.bg</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br></div>
Problem is, there is no decision, by anyone, on this subject. There is only this 'expert' opinion about confusability, floating around.<br>
<br>
If there was a decision, there would already be appeal or other process to challenge it. There is, an year and a half already, social engineering effort to convince Bulgaria to withdraw it's request for .бг.</blockquote>
</div><div><br>If there has been no denial to appeal from, only talk against it, there's been no denial and no decision. On the positive side, in nearly all instances, probabilities of winning on appeal are lower than the probabilities of winning in an original hearing or trial or decision. <br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">I agree. The rationale that may be attributed to the "denial" can be found in this blog: </font><a href="http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/clearing-the-confusion-fast-track/">http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/clearing-the-confusion-fast-track/</a> </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>It would seem that there either is, or should be, a process to "call the question" as they say in parliamentary procedure. If not, a motion can be made for a decision, or a letter sent citing undue delay and calling for a decision (with or without additional clarifying expertise appended to it). A person familiar with whatever exists in terms of procedure can recommend the best format or vehicle for forcing a decision. <br>
<br>If indeed there is no rule or even informal precedent at all in this area, then "just do it" anyway. There are all kinds of things respected by everyone in the area of "common sense" that have no rule or precedent to support them. One example are principles of logic: they remain fully applicable to ICANN absent a formal ICANN rule or ruling prohibiting the application of logic in a given set of instances that somehow applies to this issue. (Etc....) <br>
</div></div><font color="#888888"><br>-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1 <br>Ishpeming, MI 49849 <br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-4026 (cell)<br><br><br>
<br><br><br><br>
</font><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div><div>Cell: +679 998 2851</div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>