Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	Garry Anderson
Date/Time:	Tue, December 18, 2001 at 1:53 AM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject:	Were I leading prosecution
Message:
This is off the top of my head, so will have to work on it. Keeping in mind this was ICANN and Afilias business, I would use the analogy: Of a bank with security experts (Afilias) and the police force (ICANN) allowing people to cash cheques (domains) without seeing if the signature (trademark) matched the cheque name (trademark) or even validating the date. This is apart from the fact they did not check to see if they owned the account (owned the trademark).
Link:	WIPO.org.uk

Message Thread:

• NeuLevel .BIZ Application Refunds??  Any suggestions? — Ron_Bennett, December 17 @ 7:30 PM (2/8)
• dotbizlottery — crs, December 18 @ 9:03 AM (1/1)
• RegLand and the current registry and registrar culture — antipodes, December 18 @ 11:53 AM (0/0)
• Depends on terms of agreement — Garry Anderson, December 17 @ 7:57 PM (1/5)
• Did more reading - NeuLevel has returned the applications back to their originating BIZ registrars — Ron_Bennett, December 17 @ 8:17 PM (1/4)
• "failure to do so will cost them much bad publicity" — Garry Anderson, December 17 @ 9:31 PM (2/3)
• Were I leading prosecution — Garry Anderson, December 18 @ 1:53 AM (1/1)
• and one other important point: the bank charges them a fee to cash the cheque. — spot, December 18 @ 2:42 AM (0/0)
• An icing is no more a pudding than you are want of the Shakespearean "Brain" - Quo Vadis??? — IntemetAdvocate, December 17 @ 10:20 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy