Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 05:08 PM 12/24/96 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:

>At 1:10 PM -0600 12/24/96, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>> The true purpose behind that 60-day waiting period is obvious if you
look at
>> the make-up of the IAHC.
>>
>> Count the number of lawyers and others with legal background, determine the
>> PERCENTAGE of their interest, and then figure out how lawyers make their
>> money.

>> These folks are attempting to create a new industry (and its not the first
>> time) from which they can reap extensive fees and ultimately profits.
>
>Whoa there! It's not that sinister. It's worse.
>
>NSI's dispute policy has already created the industry. The majority of
>domain name holders have (or will soon have) a lawyer on retainer
>because of this.

Mr. Higgs is right.  The terrible NSI policy forces domain name owners to
hire trademark counsel to go to Tunisia, of all places, to obtain
trademarks that they don't need for any purpose except fighting some
challenge in which NSI automatically takes the side of the challenger.  

>What the IAHC are now doing is providing a control mechanism (the
>60-day waiting period) on top of the registration process so this new
>legal industry can effectively control the domain name circulation.

I can see why you would have this impression, but it is really the
opposite.  The vast majority of domain names, under the IAHC proposal,
would sail through the 60-day period unscathed, and would be *more
resistant* to groundless legal challenge than domain names are today under
NSI's flawed policy.  This would likely *reduce* litigation compared with
the present situation (clue, regis, dci, disc, ty, juno, etc.).