[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-b] Nature of answer to question B

At 10:52 22.10.99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

>I also request that people who choose Option B indicate what they
>understand the term "other mechanisms" to mean. Believing that UDRP is
>sufficient is different from believing that court litigation is sufficient.

Since I voted for Option B (and did not send my vote to the list):

I believe that:

- All suggested mechanisms that ICANN could implement to protect famous marks
   are either ineffective or harmful to the development of commercial and
   non-commercial use of the Internet
- UDRP will significantly reduce the cost to the "famous mark" holders of
   protecting their marks against clear cases of cyberpiracy compared to
   the curent situation
- A few more years of discussion in non-Internet fora about how to decide
   what marks are internationally famous or not is likely to lead to
   conclusions, and ICANN should not attempt to guess at these conclusions
   at the present time; doing so might even harm, delay or bias the
   non-Internet process for reaching conclusions in this matter.

All these lead me to vote for option B.


Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway