<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] ICANN-site FAQ on the existing Verisign agreement
At 9:32 pm +1200 3/22/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Perhaps you may have seen how ICANN is helpful in providing answers to
>FAQ's re the status-quo agreement with NSI.
>http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
>
>It amazes me how many loopholes the staff have now identified in the
>existing agreement.
>
>Clearly someone may have indicated to ICANN that when it comes again to a
>court challenge, it may be better off with Plan B.
Which begs the question:
1. Who on the ICANN "staff" was involved in the drafting of the original
contract.
Which begs the further questions:
2. Are they still involved?
3. If so, why?
--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|