RE: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

PS. Let me clarify (terseness is going to hang me yet). I still maintain
that the root-registry should not be involved in a UDRP, either for or
against. However, I see nothing wrong with ICANN running UDRP as a separate
*optional* service offering, completely independent of a root-registry. UDRP
should not be a precondition of registering a new TLD, not should it be
mandated for TLD registries.


Actually, I have nothing against a UDRP ... as long as it isn't mandatory.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 4:09 PM
> To: Martin B. Schwimmer; wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B
>
>
> At 17:54 22.10.99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >Then we can assume that neither you nor Mr. Alverstrand will vote for
> >Option C, and that you are both in favor of a decently run UDRP.
>
> Speaking for myself: Yes.
>
>               Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
>