[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:20:37 -0700
In-Reply-To: <37CFD831.CC536DC7@syr.edu>; from Milton Mueller on Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:16:17AM -0400
Mail-Followup-To: wg-c@dnso.org
References: <002a01bef610$ea8be960$6500a8c0@F00.telia.com> <37CFD831.CC536DC7@syr.edu>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 10:16:17AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Peter:
> If these conditions are met I cannot see how 10 new gTLDs would
> be any different from 3 new gTLDs. In other words, if these
> protections work, 10 vs 3 won't make any serious difference.

If they *don't* work, it's three times as many lawsuits, and three 
times the expense to TM holders.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

References:
- [wg-c] Compromise proposal
  - From: "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se>
- Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
  - From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
- Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
  - From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
Next by Date: [wg-c] compromise proposal
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread