RE: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[David Rosenthal <rosenthal@insider.ch>]

>----------
>From: 	Carl Oppedahl[SMTP:carl@oppedahl.com]
>Sent: 	Mittwoch, 25. Dezember 1996 15:55
>To: 	David Rosenthal
>Cc: 	'iahc-discuss@iahc.org'
>Subject: 	RE: Thread 2: 60-day issue
>
>>
>>If you sign up for a new domain name before all others and it does not
>>infringe any other's right's, why should anyone else be allowed to opt
>>for that name too? 
>
>There is no reason that someone else should be able to, of course you
>are
>correct.  What's different is that under the present NSI regime,
>someone
>else can try to get the domain name taken away from its owner not only
>within 60 days, but any time in the years that follow.  At least the
>IAHC
>proposal compresses most of the risk into the first 60 days, and allows
>a
>sigh of relief after the 60 days has expired.

I think we agree on the issue. Let's hope, NSI will too.
>
>>In your case, if the covetous trademark owner reacts
>>within the 60-day period, would it be allowed to get that domain name
>>instead of the one that registered it first? If so, why and by whom? 
>
>Under the IAHC proposal, a covetous trademark owner that reacts within
>the
>60-day period will have to try to find a court that feels it necessary
>to
>order a transfer of the domain name.
>
>But please, please, think about this.  If some trademark owner decides
>it
>cares enough about its trademark to obsessively study the lists of
>domain
>names that are in their 60-day periods ... why doesn't that trademark
>owner
>simply register the domain name?  The very fact that it did not bother
>to
>register it stands for something.

Maybe it did register, but the registration is still beeing processed by
the provider of that trademark owner or so. We had at least one such
case here in Switzerland. Maybe a colleague of the trademark owner
happened to spot the domain-name on the list, remembered about his
colleague and called him up. Another reason could be that someone is
planning to introduce a new product under a really good name for which
it paid a big amount of money (name research, consultants, ad
preparation etc.) but did not yet start using (or registering) it in
order not to tip off the competitors. 
>
>NSI is a division of SAIC, a company with cadres of lawyers and $2
>billion
>in annual revenues.  It had enough money to send three lawyers to the
>deposition of the president of Roadrunner Computers in the Roadrunner
>case.
> NSI's policy is not justified on these grounds.  You are correct,
>though,
>that NSI has offered this as a supposed justification for its policy.

Why not move NSI (and along with it the IANA) simply out of States? We
would welcome them here in Switzerland <g>. As long there is no there is
no court enforcable law hindering NSI doing such, the IAHC will not be
able to stop them. And even if mighty IANA might decide to bring this to
an end and would set up another registry for ".com" and would tell the
providers world-wide not to listen to NSI anymore, it might face a
antitrust-suit (in other words: The current Internet regime could well
be described as a cartel). 
>
>>Of course you are right. I simply believe the only reason to stop
>>someone using a specific domain name is if he breaks the law (and acting
>>against fair competition is considered as such here). If someone get's
>>feelings of envy one must simply say: That's life -- next time you'd be
>>quicker. 
>
>Well, if the registration authorities of the world were to listen to
>you
>they would be better off.  NSI, however, stubbornly refuses to admit
>that
>its policy is a failure.  NSI is so stubborn at following its policy
>that
>it came within four days of cutting off over half a million email
>customers
>of Juno Online.  I believe the IAHC recommendations were in part an
>attempt
>to show how it is possible, indeed easy, to do better than the NSI
>policy.

I agree. So let's wait and see what the IAHC presents us on Januar 31st
-- and how IANA reacts to it. 

David 
>
>