nanog mailing list archives
Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...)
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner () nic-naa net>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:34:44 -0500
Well, I understand that this _appears_ to be a marks issue. However, the operator (NS) is allowed under the regulatory agreement (quasi-ICANN gTLD contract) to create a reserved words list, as is the regulator, independent of any other theory of right. in-addr.arpa sure isn't copyrighted. When I negociated NS's deal with CNNIC, it was not novel that they (CNNIC) wanted the names of some (highly respected) individual persons similarly not offered unconditionally to unqualified buyers. We'd the same language in the .BIZ (ICANN) agreement, and in the .US (US DoC) Recap: nanog didn't have to be trademarked to have been one of the "reserved words" for a registry operated for a large part of north america, and it is at the registry operator's discression to retroactively withdraw words, subject to the overview of its regulator, in this case, the US DoC. On the other hand, if disfunction can only be cured by copy right, things are going to be entertaining. Eric no longer speaking, for, or to, NS, the DoC, ICANN, or god.
Current thread:
- RE: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Michel Py (Nov 02)
- RE: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Scott Call (Nov 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Michel Py (Nov 03)
- Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Nov 03)
- Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Steve Gibbard (Nov 03)
- Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Nov 03)
- Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 03)
- Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Nov 03)
- RE: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Michel Py (Nov 03)
- RE: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...) Jeffrey Wheat (Nov 04)