Bill Lovell a �crit:
>
> At 01:59 PM 2/21/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >By using the IETF's nomenclature - calling the WIPO Report on domain
> >names an "RFC" (RFC3) - WIPO is practicing the intellectual property
> >theft that its report pretends to stop.
> >
> Give us a break. The RFC = "Request For Comment" has been around
> since Hector was a pup, and was certainly not originated by IETF.
Despite your colorful language, you're wrong. The story, as I heard
it from "reliable sources", is that the expression 'Request For
Comments'
was introduced into this milieu by the Crockers, in the early days
of the IETF. It isn't part of traditional supranational org
parlance, as far as I can recollect, where documents like WIPO's
RFC3 are normally termed 'reports'. It's perfectly evident what the
pretension of WIPO is in using that expression: to give it more
legitimacy than it would otherwise have; and that's precisely what
they're condemning in look-alike domain names.
