nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
From: "Jeff Shultz" <jeffshultz () wvi com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:10:57 -0700
I'm having fun figuring out how altering BIND (since I assume that is the basis of their arguements) rises to the level of conspiracy... IANAL, obviously. ** Reply to message from Bob Martin <bob () buckhorn net> on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:20 -0500
Anything I/we can do to help the cause? Bob Martin Quoted from different thread:(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing in court filings at some point.) -- Paul Vixie
-- Jeff Shultz A railfan pulls up to a RR crossing hoping that there will be a train.
Current thread:
- Verisign vs. ICANN Bob Martin (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Jeff Shultz (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Ariel Biener (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN william(at)elan.net (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Chris Yarnell (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Edward B. Dreger (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Edward B. Dreger (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Edward B. Dreger (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Paul Vixie (Jun 18)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN william(at)elan.net (Jun 17)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Jeff Shultz (Jun 17)