Re: [wg-b] Formal Ballot

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

What would be an example of an intellectual property safeguard that was
very dangerous to another?

I have a problem with the word "status quo" here at a time when a major
status quo changer, namely the UDRP, is pending.  

At 03:51 PM 10/15/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Michael:
>My responses:
>
>I have trouble with the word "safeguards." It is far too general and a
>positively-loaded term. Who is against "safeguards?" It gives no sense that
>"safeguards" for one interest (big TM holders) are very dangerous or
costly to
>other interests. Can we say something more specific like: "exclusions of
famous
>marks" or "special protections for famous marks?" or "special measures to
>protect famous marks"? I feel very strongly that such a word substitution is
>necessary.
>
>I have trouble viewing B and C as mutually exclusive. I think they are
both true
>and would want to vote for both of them.
>
>
>>       [] Option A - Some type of safeguards, yet to be determined are
>> necessary to protect the interests of consumers and trademark owners.
>>       [] Option B - No safeguards are necessary because the status quo is
>> acceptable
>>       [] Option C - Safeguards are not proper because it exceeds the scope
>> of ICANN's authority
>>       [] Option D - I choose to abstain from the voting process at this
time
>>
>
>
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @