Re: A question about protocol

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent,

  Please read below your comments.

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
> >
> >
> > Christopher Ambler writes:
> > > I also believe that most feel the 60-day wait is a bad idea,
> >
> > The legal types on both sides of the trademark law fence don't seem to
> > dislike it, though. Carl Oppedahl, who has if anything been an
> > outspoken proponent of reform, seems to favor it. Even Karl Auerbach
> > seems to think some length of waiting period would be good although he
> > disagrees with the length.
> 
> However, the "legal types" perhaps shouldn't be the only ones to
> decide.  If one out of a thousand new domain names causes a trademark
> conflict, then the inconvenience to the 999 others should be
> considered.  The 60 day wait seems to be predicated on the idea that
> *every* name is likely to cause conflicts, and there is no evidence at
> all for this.  In fact, the one in a thousand number seems more
> likely.  I believe there have been something less than 20 court cases
> involving trademark disputes -- if you multiply that by 30 for cases
> that never reached court, that is 600 out of 600,000 cases driving
> policy.  This is really a case of the tail wagging the dog.

  Here Here!  I agree compleatly with this anology.
> 
> Carl Opendahl has put forth the speculative idea that after some the
> wait will achieve some court significance, but all the legal opinion
> on the list has so far has conceded that the primary benefit comes
> from the fact of publication, *not* whether DNS is activated or not.
> 
> I think *everybody* agrees that a 60 day *publication* period is a good
> idea.  I have yet to see a cogent set of reasons, by a legal person or
> anyone else, why the DNS should be inactive during that time -- every
> set of reasons, except for Carl's speculation, are really arguments
> for *publication*, not an inactive period.

  Well that is not the case.  At least five poeple have responded to 
this in a negitive fassion.  Also you are conterdicting yourself form
what you indicated above.
> 
> > > and that the lottery is a bad idea.
> >
> > I've heard you say this repeatedly. I've also heard others say they
> > like the thing.
> 
> Here, however, I agree with you.  The lottery is clearly only a
> bootstrap, and the complaints against it are obviously self-serving.

  That is an arrogant attitude!  Self serving.  How do you arrive at
that conclusion.  In the current Dec 19th perposal, Lottery perposal
is predicated by the $20k Fee, that is what makes it a bad idea. Not
to mention the fee itself is way to high!!  Many on this list have
objected to both of these parts of the IECH draft.  No consensus here!
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I'm not sure that the primary basis for our decision can or should be
> > the commercial interests of a fairly small number of organizations.
> > The interest of the vast majority of users of the net comes before the
> > commercial interests of a fairly small number.
> 
> This is exactly why I think the 60 day waiting period should be
> modified to a 60 day publication period -- we are distorting policy
> to accomodate the small percentage of domain names that do involve
> trademark conflict.  We are balancing the good of the 999 against the
> good of the 1, and overall, I think it is better for the net if we
> aim for the 999, especially if there is a "pretty good" solution
> available for the 1.

  Well using this logic I would tend to agree.  BUt again you conterdict
you previous statment of the 60 day WAITING period.  Either you support 
the 60 day WAITING peoiod or you don't.  Which is it?
> 
> [...]
>

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com