At 07:26 PM 9/10/99 , Diane Cabell wrote: >The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through >Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that. That's entirely separate from "Internet governance." The major intellectual property players in Washington have always played a dominant role irrespective of the technology, and will continue to do so. Any Internet related regimes will be determined by Congress and the Judiciary. Nothing else matters, so it may as well be partitioned off, and forgotten. They are also not the problem. --tony
- [IFWP] November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's criti... Gordon Cook
- [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISO... David Farber
- [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1... Frank Rizzo
- [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and pa... David Farber
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intr... Greg Skinner
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report -... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro an... Greg Skinner
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intr... Frank Rizzo
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report -... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intr... Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report -... A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro an... Jeff Williams
- [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions... Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not as... Greg Skinner
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and no... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and no... A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance a... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and no... David Farber
- where then are the scenarios? Re: [IF... Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and no... Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] please give us substance a... Gordon Cook