[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

-----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 6:43 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Joop Teernstra'; mpalage@infonetworks.com;
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?

Hello Marilyn,
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