Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

1999-02-28 Thread jeff Williams
Bill and all, Ok, this is our opinion as well. I was just trying to get some clarification on what you were saying. This also brings up another interesting point as well. If I or anyone were to trademark, say .STORe (read "dot Store") I must first show it as in use in commerce on the

Pot Kettle, black was:Re: PERSONAL APPEAL ----Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

1999-02-28 Thread jeff Williams
Ken and all, Well Ken, all I can say is, Try practicing what you preach. POT KETTLE BLACK! Ken Stubbs wrote: good morning all (i think it's morning here in singapore.. after flying and waiting in airports for 37.5 hours in the last 2 days) i have been travelling for the last 3-4 days

[IFWP] NSI's Response to ICANN's Proposed Guidelines

1999-02-28 Thread Ellen Rony
Network Solutions' response of ICANN's request for comments regarding its proposed guidelines for registrar accreditation can be found at NSI's web site at http://www.netsol.com/policy/icann299/guideline-comments.htm Too early for Christmas. No "l"

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

1999-02-28 Thread Bill Lovell
At 12:32 AM 2/28/99 +, you wrote: Bill and all, Ok, this is our opinion as well. I was just trying to get some clarification on what you were saying. This also brings up another interesting point as well. If I or anyone were to trademark, say .STORe (read "dot Store") I must first

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

1999-02-28 Thread jeff Williams
Bill and all, Bill Lovell wrote: At 09:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote: At 01:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote: At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote: Bill and all other EudorsPro users, under

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

1999-02-28 Thread Esther Dyson
Here is what the bylaws say: (a) The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the

RE: [IFWP] NSI's Response to ICANN's Proposed Guidelines

1999-02-28 Thread cgomes
Ken, We decided that this was a better way to go, providing the transferee a new two year period with the new registrar. We nixed the idea of a transfer fee and also decided that the costs of refunding prorated amounts could cost more than the amount refunded. See you in Singapore. Chuck

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!

1999-02-28 Thread Greg Skinner
Joop Teernstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 11:08 25/02/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote: No governmental structure can overcome the foibles of human nature. You sound pretty defeatist. The design of such structures is an exercise in putting checks on those foibles,of balancing powers and creating

[IFWP] Re: WIPO meeting March 10

1999-02-28 Thread A. Michael Froomkin (WIPO related mail)
I think we all owe DNRC thanks for their tireless attention to the WIPO process. Nevertheless, regarding the the description of the WIPO "Experts" participation in drafting, I feel obligated to correct one detail for the record regarding the account offered in the press release quoted below. In

[IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level

1999-02-28 Thread Kerry Miller
Bill Lovell Okay, so the dent goes the *other* way. I always thought that, as the holder of a registered trademark, I "owned" that mark. In what way do I not own it? Anything that can be "owned" is property. A trademark registration is more like a contract with the world: "for the

Re: [IFWP] Dallas Conference first day report

1999-02-28 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
sigh I guess this says how far behind I am with my messages sigh At 09:16 AM 2/25/99 -0800, Frank Rizzo wrote: At 12:01 AM -0800 2/25/99, Einar Stefferud wrote: On pain of possibly encountering a severe case of regrets, I have to agree with Dave that: I find it extremely ironic that you would

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

1999-02-28 Thread Jim Dixon
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 11:27 AM 2/27/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote [replying to Dave's relentless personal attacks]: Dave, you are boring everyone. ... That's true. You have nothing positive to say, nothing to contribute. In other words, stop attacking me, stop

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [cliffd@endispute.co.uk (Cliff Dilloway)]

1999-02-28 Thread Richard J. Sexton
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Dilloway) Subject: Dispute Resolution To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mail-Software: Ameol2 X-URL: http://www.ameol.com Having missed about a months discussion on the IFWP list the threatening

Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020

1999-02-28 Thread Milton Mueller
Jim Dixon wrote: Dave, you are boring everyone. Amen to that. --MM