On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> The US Courts (which is what ICANN has to answer to) do not agree with
> >> you. (reference Image Online Design vs CORE)
>
> > William - may i suggest you take the time to read the law. In short you
> > don't know what your talking about. Image Online Design vs CORE is
> > irrelevant to the issue. This has nothing to do with trade marks. Wrong
> > law William ;-)
>
> So you say, Joe. So you say.
>
> But actions speak a lot louder than words, and me thinks that none of
> the renegade registries have a legal leg to stand on in trying to
> claim exclusive use of the TLD strings they have squatted on.
You see William it's statements like this that really cause people
confusion. This squatting claim is the most amusing. But maybe you have
something here. In which case I would appreciate your idea of what
squatting means. the question to you is: how does one squat on property
one creates for one's own use (and by one's own I mean a collective of
some 1,100). Squating clearly implies we are occupying someone elses
property - well that begs the question, who's property is it.
So far as respects the law I've been speaking "oranges" while you speak
"Apples". So if there is something pertinent I'd appreciate some
clarification from you because this issue affects all tld's including com
net and org.
regards
joe
--
Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
