<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Court oversight
- To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Court oversight
- From: Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:29:13 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:x-mailer:date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:sender; b=F4N4VmZXwiYIYIlfnL3csg58yDbxJVGgwKeLA/BkkZMl+imVLCUUOgk5PnFqdbrUB73BEjsHs7ogo34Tpt1H8nbLk+w++UErEHZAvcSoBhhI6vxoWdvn/bCFmyZY3qkpgV6nU0sRX3S6n7OFz0XrAdc7Pjykx0eQSjisya5lfgc=
- In-reply-to: <20061009190040.91703.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
- References: <20061009190040.91703.qmail@web52907.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 12:00 PM 09.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Hugh Dierker wrote:
It could just be me but i don't think we need US courts directing
policy regarding the running of the Net.
<http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/78683>http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/78683
The article's headline is with a question mark, and the report it
quotes says, "The court is now thinking about
<http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/662>asking ICANN to
suspend spamhaus.org". The court is thinking, but that doesn't mean
it will do something like that. ICANN is not a member in this case,
and it would be quite unusual for a court to serve ICANN with such an order.
Btw, that onlly shows that people (judges are no exception) are not
aware of what ICANN does, and there's a lot of room to improve this.
Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|