RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

US PTO. Reason: ICANN is based in US and listens to US law first and
foremost or California GC gets instructed to yank their charter, by the
feds.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 7:10 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal
>
>
> At 17:18 12-08-99 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >Unlike CORE, IOD has never claimed to be in
> >charge, has never claimed to be the anointed successor of the root,
>
> Dear Chris:
>
> Hold her, Myrt, you're a runnin' for the pea patch!
>
> CORE did not claim to be the anointed one.  Every indication
> we had from
> the IAHC folk was that they knew where the rocks were.  We
> now know to our
> disadvantage that they didn't know where the stream was.
>
> >and has never claimed that its registry would be in the root by a
> >certain date, changing that date as it came and went. It also has
> >not chosen a TLD that was previously trademarked.
>
> Tell me, Chris, which Trademark office now or ever in the past would
> register a TLD?
>
> Regards, BobC
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "One test is worth three expert opinions!"
> Ulric B. Bray
>