[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Revised Draft Ballot
Right, now I've got it. Thanks, Marilyn
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 6:43 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Joop Teernstra'; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: RE: [wg-b] Revised Draft Ballot
At 01:02 AM 19/10/1999 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Joop, I want to better understand your request to Michael. I had seen
>option B and C as separate. One reads that there are mechanisms external
>ICANN which are adequate... and the second that such mechanisms wouldn't be
>in ICANN's authority anyway. By the way, I saw Option A as being neutral on
>who should develop such mechanism for the protection of famous marks. For
>instance, and I would see this being discussed further, so do consider it a
>very high level suggestion which requires much further thought and
>discussion, it might be that the mechanism would be developed by WIPO and
>recognized by ICANN, after vetting/review, comments, etc.
>Could you explain more about why you suggest combining the options B and C?
Michael requested that we vote for only one of each options. I know that
he will combine the results of votes for B or C, but I would find the vote
result more informative if we could see votes for either A, B, C , B+C and
>I wonder if it might be that the options aren't mutually exclusive? Which
>would agree. I'm wondering about maybe a two part question: with a) and b)
>which could both be voted separately.
My intention was very similar to that.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners