Re: 60 day waiting period

[Paul Svensson <paul@svensson.org>]

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Carl Oppedahl wrote:

>Nope.  There's a big difference.  Right now what happens all the time is
>that somebody wakes up after all these years and figures out that the
>Internet exists and that they want a domain name.  They then find that the
>one they like best is gone.  In many cases, they then consult trademark
>counsel and learn that they have no rights -- that so long as the domain
>name owner isn't infringing their trademark (e.g. different goods or
>services) they will get nowhere in court.  
>
>Under the present NSI policy, they then go barging in NSI's door and ask
>NSI to give them the relief that a court would never give them.  And in
>many cases NSI does exactly that.
>
>Under the IAHC recommendation, I think that the covetous sleeper will sort
>of realize that if the 60 days came and went a year or two ago, it is
>pretty clear that they have no one but themselves to blame.

This is better achieved by just avoiding to redo the mistakes of the past,
and simply pointing complainants toward their nearest court.
I don't think it's at all clear that a waiting period would improve
the registrars chances of staying out of conflict in this case,
and definitely not in any way motivating the cost of the waiting period.

It's a clear referral of conflict resolution to established procedure
(ie, the courts) is what makes the biggest difference to current NSI practice,
and this is the point that needs to be stressed -- not adding arbitrary delays.

>There's another reason why the waiting period helps the trademark fights.
> [talk about getting people to think about using higher-level domains]

If this is the intention of the IAHC, they should make it explicit.

	/Paul