Re: A question about protocol

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > > 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.

I've waivered back and forth on this point.  At the outset I was
against any delay at all.  However, Carl O. made what was to me a very
interesting comment: That if there is a waiting period, then the legal
system may eventually come around to recognize it as forming a sharp
dividing line between "timely" and "untimely" challanges to the
proposed DNS name.  An untimely challanger would have to overcome a
presumption against the good faith of its position and and would have
to demonstrate something extra in order to prevail against the
registration.  This kind of clear dividing line would help a
registrant know when its possession of a name is stable and safe.
This would be a good thing.

I've asked for a shorter (14 day) rather than a longer (60) day
period.  It's my own feeling that two weeks after publication is
plenty of time for one who is electronically vigilant to notice the
registration and to give notice of its intent to challange the
registration.  (The challange need not be fought to conclusion within
the period.)

However, I'm also concerned that if the period is so short that a
significant part of the conservative legal establishment considers it
too short to give time for the vigilant to notice and complain, then
the period may never obtain the legal status of dividing "timely" from
"untimely."

		--karl--