At 03:32 PM 2/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
Silliest thing yet -- even surpassing "constituencies" in the first place.
Wouldn't this definition, paraphrasing the immortal Senator McCarthy
(while suggesting absolutely NONE of his rabidity), include anyone
"who does now, ever has, or ever will have a web page?"
Bill Lovell
>On 04-Feb-99 Mikki Barry wrote:
>> Here are my comments. I am still against constituencies, but if they are
>> going in, this one should be changed:
>>
>> At 5:30 PM -0500 2/4/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>
>>> 6. TRADEMARK AND ANTI-COUNTERFEITING INTERESTS: entities including,
>>>but not limited to trademark owners and groups of owners, who are
>>>interested is the protection of trademarks or the effort to stop
>>>trademark counterfeiting and infringement.
>>
>> I suggest:
>>
>> 6. DOMAIN NAME AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS: entities who are
>> interested in the protection of domain names, and their interaction with
>> intellectual property rights.
>
>Mikki, I really like this concept. It allows organizations like DNRC and
>others who are active in intellectual property issues, but may not share the
>view of Trademark interests. This provides a nice balance to this
>constituency and would go a LONG way towards removing my objection to it.
>
>I think we should really examine this as a good compromise position on
what has
>been a most controversial issue.
>
>----------------------------------
>E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 04-Feb-99
>Time: 15:29:13
>----------------------------------
>"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
>of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
>- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
>
>--
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
