[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 ]
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Mon Sep 28 23:27:17 CEST 2015
Introduction of fees? -jg On 28/09/2015 21:26, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: >Has there ever been a single decision taken by ICANN which they felt >they could get away with (i.e. without being sued to hell and back) that >WAS NOT in the economic interests of the domain registrars? If so >please describe it, because it will be news to me (and to many others >also, I'm sure).
- 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 ]