Discuss mailing list

[Riley Baird <riley AT openmailbox.org>]

I don't know how you'd be able to get legal protection for TLDs. You
could try to do this using trademarks, but really, I think that this is
a dangerous road to go down.

On 24/12/14 18:10, Tim Groeneveld wrote:
> maybe this could happen [grandfathering of the domains] but I doubt it 
> highly. I have fought the good fight,  but nothing happened. 
> Dear Lord God Almighty, please let this (and .biz before it) be a lesson 
> that we need a much better legal protections put in place if we want to 
> seriously operate in this space. 
> If we can't or don't want to do this, we should throw our hands up and quit 
> now. 
> Kind Regards, Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:07:08 +1100 riley AT openmailbox.org wrote ---- I 
> doubt that the creation of .ing is intentionally trying to derail the
> 
> OpenNIC project. More likely, it was just a lack of concern for it,
> 
> perhaps through ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> The entity which filed the application for .ing is Charleston Road
> 
> Registry, which is basically Google, but with a name change to meet
> 
> ICANN policy.
> 
> 
> 
> How many .ing domains are there? Do you think that Google could be
> 
> convinced to "grandfather" the already registered domains?
> 
> 
> 
> On 24/12/14 09:15, David wrote:
> 
>> We should stick to opennic should be following the to the letter their
> 
>> own policy that was establish a long time ago. I smell a big rotten
> 
>> rotten fish in trying to derail the opennic project.     We should support
> 
>> Our leaders and supporters of opennic. ICANN it is corporate piranha, in
> 
>> other words Government greed in neutralizing the net..
> 
>>
> 
>> On 12/23/2014 11:45 PM, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> 
>>> In case you forgot, this issue was already discussed on the list earlier
> 
>>> this year, and the general consensus was that nobody had enough interest
> 
>>> to put forth the effort of contacting the EFF or anyone else.  If we
> 
>>> were going to fight for it, that would have been the time -- when ICANN
> 
>>> first announced the possibility of using .ing.  At this point its too
> 
>>> late, it's a done deal and any credibility we might have had towards a
> 
>>> claim is gone through lack of action.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> But hey, if you want to hold me personally responsible for the loss of
> 
>>> the zone, more power to ya.
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> On 12/20/2014 01:15 PM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> 
>>>> I really think someone should contact the EFF about this issue. I
> 
>>>> don't personally care about my .ing domains as they're just redirects,
> 
>>>> but if everyone caves in like Jeff is, they're eventually gonna go
> 
>>>> after Julian, and if Julian doesn't fight back, OpenNIC will be gone.
> 
>>>> -- -Dan Q
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> --------
> 
>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> 
>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>>
> 
>>> --------
> 
>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> 
>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> 
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>