[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Töma Gavrichenkov
ximaera at gmail.com
Sun May 19 11:07:00 CEST 2019
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:03 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: > >And yes, Kazakhstanian court also thinks IP addresses are property. Do > you > >consider yourself in a good company now? > > I am not in a position to argue with the opinions of either Kazakhstan > coyrts or U.S. courts. > That is a nice phrase! For your information, courts rely on independent subject matter experts to make adequate decisions, and you now admit that you do not have enough experience and/or expertise to testify about such things in a court to persuade a judge even in your own country of origin. That is, well, a reason to shut down quite a few discussions on that list now :-) -- Töma > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190519/7c0ecbf8/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]