This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Tue Sep 29 02:54:41 CEST 2015
In message <E36A440F-7940-4DDE-9618-767EC16E3ADD at blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote: >Or how about most of the 2013 RAA? > >In particular the obligation to sign the contract before you could offer >new TLDs .. > >Not something ANY registrar asked for .. Are you claiming that there were one or more provisions within the 2013 RAA that any of the economically important registrars actually objected to? If so, what were those provisions? I challenge you to cite any such. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]