[IFWP] Re: Speculation (was Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) - Questions

1999-07-05 Thread William X. Walsh
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:34:47 +0200, Jean-Michel Becar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dear Collegues, > >This is my first Email in this list as I'm completely new in this process. >I'm working for ETSI and I'm in charge like was Roberto Gaetano before he >left us (I deeply regret him, he was my boss f

[IFWP] Re: Speculation (was Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)

1999-07-03 Thread Jeff Williams
Mikki and all, Quite right Mikki, quite right indeed. Unfortunately there are those that believe that some DN's that are not Trademarked or have filed for one, are illegal. Of course the answer to if they are or not, is still unclear. The WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations in Chapter 3 seem

[IFWP] Re: Speculation (was Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)

1999-07-02 Thread William X. Walsh
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 16:14:04 -0700, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 06:04 PM 7/2/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >>You don't really think this little scam is going to fly do you? > > >while it is understandable why you would choose to favor only those scams >from which you benefit, why

[IFWP] Re: Speculation (was Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)

1999-07-02 Thread Jeff Williams
Ken and all, The problem here Ken old son, is that there has been NO "Community COnsensus" on decisions that ICANN has made and acted upon unilaterly Ken Stubbs wrote: > FIRST... PLEASE LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR ALL CAPS... THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MY > E-MAIL CLIENT FORMATTING. > NOW ON TO THE