Re: 60 day waiting peroid.

[David Collier-Brown <davecb@Canada.Sun.COM>]

At 6:48 PM -0800 12/20/96, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 2.  You register a name and wait 2 months.   You are challenged and have to
> > give up the name.  YOu have little invested, since you haven't started
> > using it.
> >
> >       I would choose 2.  What makes it so onerous?

Simon Higgs wrote: 
> Internet Dog Years.


  Good point!  But that re-raises the question of how much this is
tied to the rapid rise in registrations on the 'net.

  Let me ask the question directly: Is a 60-day period 
	i) suitable in times of high registration rates?
	ii) suitable after the rates flatten out?

  I speculate that the answer to (i) is true, that (ii) is
false and that a necessary and sufficient period will fall
in steps toward roughly 30 days based on user experience and
the availability of new-domain search servies.

  If folks believe this speciulation true, then I'd venture to suggest
that the period be a variable, and that it be set to 60 days in the
final IAHC RFC, with the option to change it later, say 90 days after
approval of another RFC...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb