Re: [wg-b] Preliminary Questions

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

agreed (remember, to me, that's a conditional "no" in your first sentence).
 ok, so what does the rest of the group think - if there is a comfort level
in the ability of the udrp and registration policies to prevent and resolve
disputes, is the effort of the exclusion process justified by the extra
protection?



At 09:06 AM 9/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>> if the law to protect these marks already exists, what need is there for
>>> icann to do anything other than it already plans, which is to have the
>>> dispute resolution process be based upon law?
>> I don't necessarily disagree with you if the UDRP (which, let's remember is
>> not yet a done deal), in combination with the other stuff (verifiable
>> contact info, prepayment and searchable database) is in place.  My problems
>> with the exclusion is that it seems to provide little marginal improvement
>> over a decently-run UDRP.
>
>so, i propose we say say no to this stuff and concentrate on seeing that the
>dispute resolution process and policies are top quality, fair, and as easy
>as possible within the fairness and quality constraints.
>
>randy
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @