Re: A question about protocol

[Das Devaraj <das@netcom.com>]

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Kent Crispin writes:
> > 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
> 
> A publication period is meaningless if the name is already in the DNS
> during that time. If so, what distinguishes these 60 days from any
> other 60 days? After all, the information is published forever once
> the name is in the DNS, so what would make the first 60 days
> different?

Whenever I registered a DBA (Doing Business As), I could open a bank
account, print business cards, order telephone service and proceed on 
Day 1 as if everything was OK (made sure the name was unique and some 
other leg work before filing the DBA application).  But then had to file 
legal notices, as required by law in certain newspapers for 30 days.  

Kent Crispin's suggestion seems to me like the DBA processing.  So is
there anything preventing SLD registrations from working like the DBA
registrations? 

Any objections to the publications may be modelled in the same way as 
objections to DBA names (folks who had this happen to them or 
legal folks care to comment on these procedures?)

Thought many legal things are decided by case law/precedent.  Wouldn't 
modelling on an existing procedure (say DBA procedures), have more 
legal clout?

Das Devaraj
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in Vegetarianism?             Vegetarian Restaurant Trek
Web    http://www.VegInfo.com                712 Bancroft Road #320
e-mail info@VegInfo.com (subject Help)       Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Interactive Voice/fax Response  (510) 256-8420                  USA