<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association
- From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:45:15 +0200
- In-reply-to: <001e01c69579$00061d60$7801a8c0@harris2>
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
- References: <AC66A6AC5610D847B53408B5143B4D2004D68DCB@0401a.ifpi.org> <44999573.70909@tucows.com> <001e01c69579$00061d60$7801a8c0@harris2>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Tony
Am 21.06.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris:
> And thus am rather surprised at your conclusion that:
> "The definition also seems to meet the needs
> of web host and ISP operators,"
>
> If it does, I have yet to meet one...
With 1&1 and Godaddy as very large international webhosts
supporting formulation 1 I would think that this conclusion
can be drawn. Which brings me to another point. Apparantly
webhosting companies are not represented in the current
constituency setup and hence not much is known about their
interessts. Since hosting is one of the real crucial services
of the net we might be advised well to think about incoperating
them somehow into our structure.
Best,
tom
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|