Re: A question about protocol

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Jeff Williams allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> > 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?

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough -- I thought I had discussed this
at some length in a previous post: The term "publication period",
strictly speaking, just means a period of time during which a public
notice is posted.  The IAHC draft states that the domain won't be
"activated" until *after* a publication period of 60 days.  However,
another approach is to activate the domain immediately, and start a 
60 day publication period at the same time.

A strong case has been made for clear legal benefits of a publication 
period.  No compelling case has been made for delaying activation 
until after the publication period is complete.

--
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F