Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 11:16 AM -0700 10/14/02, kent@songbird.com wrote:

>The text was about criteria for *registrants*, not *names*, and said
>"organizations that didn't fit" -- ie, didn't meet the criteria.  It was
>not about "names that didn't fit".  You (and Froomkin) can mince words
>all day, but the meaning is quite clear, and you know it.

Well, if the meaning was so "clear", why can we find entities other than
"non profit organisations" using .org?

History shows that your interpretation of these words differs greatly from
the real deal.

But you're being paid by ICANN to do what you do (even officially these
days), so there's no puzzle as to why you take the road you're on. It just
gets a bit old sometimes.



-- 
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.tldlobby.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html