Kent Crispin said: >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in >the context of existing law. Please re-read the WIPO draft, Kent. It contemplates MANY things that are far beyond current existing law. >It's nice that you are offering ideas, but they would probably be >taken more seriously if you became a little more familiar with what >is actually on the table. That would also be useful for you to do, Kent.
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Greg Skinner
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Diane Cabell
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Jay Fenello
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Bret A. Fausett
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Roeland M.J. Meyer
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Einar Stefferud
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Bill Lovell
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Roeland M.J. Meyer
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Bill Lovell
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Kent Crispin
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Mikki Barry
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS William X. Walsh
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Kent Crispin
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Bill Lovell
- list Re: Trademarks vs DNS Kent Crispin
- Trademarks vs DNS David Schutt
- list Re: Trademarks vs DNS Milton Mueller
- [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS Roeland M.J. Meyer
- [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS Roeland M.J. Meyer
- Re: Trademarks vs DNS Bill Lovell
- [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS Roeland M.J. Meyer