Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 04:15:08PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > > That wasn't quite what my point was. My point was that there is no
> > > way for ICANN to resolve competing TM claims, since there is no
> > > international trademark law that covers th
john and all,
Johnney my lad, you have some serious reality problems here...
Lets review them by the numbers. (See below your comments
for further details)
John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > Where do I send my bid for the .IBM registry? How about the .AOL
> > registry, as I'd like to run tha
kent and all,
Kent, I think you may be wishing for something that may or may not
occur. In any event it need not occur at all. However if such a
situation should occur you need to review your facts a bit closer.
First of all, IOD did not lose they withdrew. BIg difference right off the
bat.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:15:28 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 12:35:32PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>[...]
>> At this point, if ICANN moves to add any new TLDs, and Image Online
>> Design's .web is not one of them, I am quite certain that Image Online
John and all,
John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> Christoper Ambler wrote:
> > Kent argues against himself.
> > Kent states that IOD's claim on .web is moot, since its US trademark
> > is irrelevant if someone trademarks it in Germany.
> > However, if someone in Germany trademarks .info (one of the
All,
Christopher is exactly correct here, and it has been made plainly
evident
to Kent on several occasions as Christopher and others have made
plainly clear on too many occasions in the past. But more importantly
it is exactly this sort of mentality or thinking (Pick your own term)
that
has p
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
- snip other diatribe a la Kent "Crispy" Crispin -
>
> >
> > In that case, ICANN wouldn't have a choice, as long as it is
> > California-based. In your example, IOD and ICANN are both
> > i
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Michael Sondow
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 4:13 PM
> To: Int'l Forum on the White Paper; DNSO discuss; domain-policy
> Subject: [IFWP] Revised bylaw Article VI-B (DNSO subject-matter
> jurisdiction)
>
>
NEW ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 1: DESCRIPTION
(a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy
issues relating to [top-level domains] THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
(Scope of DNSO jurisdiction clarified in response to public
comment.)
