Dave and all,
It is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Crockers comments here are not in
line with the majority of the comments with respect to this thread.
However we have all been well indoctrinated in this scathing mode
or discourse from Mr. Crocker in the past. It seems that it continues
here as
Michael and all,
Michael M. Krieger wrote:
> Arnold Gehring wrote:
> >
> > One would think 'RFC', in minimum case, considered to be a common law
> > mark; in the generous case, a famous mark. I smell infringement,
> > confusion, and dilution. However, I don't smell any money i
Roeland, Stef and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 09:56 PM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>At 03:06 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >>>I have not analyzed this in any depth.
> >>
> >
> >Roeland Meyer replied:
> >
> >>Okay, I'm going from memory here, as I don't have time to look it
Molly and the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board,
Our (INEGroup) comments which were forwarded although somewhat
edited, are not only for the ICANN but for all of those interested, as clearly
stated in the White Paper, that were CC'ed to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-mail list and were intended for b
Jay:
> Doing the math, if there were 10 permutations,
> in 100 sub-domains, in 250 TLDs, then these large
> trademark owners would have to register 250,000
> domain names to protect their mark!!!
It is true that the TM people see things this way. It is also true that in a world of
expanding TLD
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
Sorry if this is a little late (3 days), but I just noticed it in my
in-box.
I have to agree with everything Bill Lovell says. There has been far
too much finger-pointing over the past few years (or decades). It is
simply not productive.
Bill is fine example of how not all trademark lawyers are
H is there a likelihood of confusion between WIPO and IETF? When
was the last time you saw a WIPO-crat in a T-shirt with a long beard?
Seriously, those of us who are "soft" on IPR protection in cyberspace
would welcome WIPO (and anyone else) to use and appropriate common terms
without bei
Jay Fenello a écrit:
> Because ICANN has made an arrangement with USC
> to acquire personnel, IP rights, etc, etc, etc,
> then ICANN is the only one who can continue the
> work that USC is currently providing!?
>
> I didn't know government contracting worked
> this way. Is it me ;-)
Jay-
It m
Arnold and all,
You indeed may have a good point here, to be sure. However I
look at WIPO as using the term "RFC" as simply borrowing
its familiarity in the internet industry as well as with the DOC
for purposes to add some value to "RFC-3" that may or may not
be present, depending on whom you
This comment came in response to my little survey; I thought it was worth
reading.
--MM
Frank O'Connor wrote:
> G'day Milton,
> As a lon time member of ISOC and a past contributor to various IETF working
> parties I've got a couple of comments to make about the current ICANN
> debate. Much of th
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.
Through years of devotion to the publication of Internet standards,
the IETF has made the name of "RFC" synonymous wit
My original plan was to post this document after ICANN's March meeting
and its initial decision on at-large membership. However, I
inadvertently released notes for the paper earlier today that I'd
carelessly left in my out box. So while this "late draft" version has
several holes in it, I find it
At 11:38 AM 2/20/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:32:54AM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>I am actually responding to Roeland's comment here...
>
>> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> > Sure, but first you'll have to prove that there is a problem, Chicken
>> > Little. Show me a failure
14 matches
Mail list logo
