[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Just so. However, whatever you or they do with names should
> not *interfere with Internet operation.
What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
> Grndl's enunciations would work for all the purposes brought
> forward so far for domain names, and precious few of them, I
> suspect, would conflict with trademarks. But is an *adequate
> solution enough for you? No, you want to have easy.com and
> easy.go all the way through -- screw off the hard times, let WIPO
> run the confounded world. Not for the likes of us to bear any bloody
> burden.
Excuse me.
When did I say I wanted WIPO to have their way? I never said anything
like that.
I *do* understand some of the concerns the TM interests have. This
does not mean I agree with the methods they are using to address these
concerns.
> Why not just agree to disagree, and kick back?
> Anyhow, who asked us to be *responsible, just because we see
> whats going on? We couldnt possibly be *representative, because
> nobody elected us (and a good thing too, politics'd probably corrupt
> us).
Why isn't it possible for you to accept that not everyone is going to
agree with you on everything? I disagree with other folks here on
some issues, such as Roeland and Stef [are more TLDs necessary?] This
does not mean I am being irresponsible. I have a right to my
opinions.
--gregbo
