Re: 60-day wait and repository

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Robert Frank allegedly said:
> 
[comments about "clearing a name" costing between $325-$700]
> The point of this is that in most companies both the =
> attorneys and the marketing personnel realize that clearing a name takes =
> about two weeks.

[...]

> The 60-day waiting period is essential.  

Obviously it is not essential.  We don't have one now.

[...]

> But to affect this proposal it becomes essential that a source =
> of all proposed and currently registered domain names be readily =
> available for use by both lay persons and attorneys.  That source has to =
> be quite a bit more sophisticated than the whois feature offered by NSI =
> and proposed in the IAHC draft.  Here's why.

[fuzzy match infringement explanation deleted]

Nonesense.  The issue is one of convenience, not necessity -- 
clearly, McDonalds and Toys R Us are able to do their searches with 
present tools.

[...]
> So much has been written about the =
> unfair advantages that big businesses have.  I can assure you that if =
> you go to a 30-day holding process, small businesses will be hurt more; =
> they will have to order expedited searches and pay their attorneys a =
> premium for rush reviews.  Big companies like Pepsi and Texas =
> Instruments can more easily afford a $850 same day search than can a =
> smaller entity such as Memra or Image Online Design.  If you don't want =
> to fill the pockets of attorneys with money, don't given them the =
> opportunity.

I got a trademark for Songbird.  I did some of the work myself.  Not
counting the PTO, the total cost was $250, *including* a full search
(direct hit, analytical, and common law).  I did my own search of DNS. 
It was all done in a week.  Of course, a larger company could spend
more money on lawyers...but I think you are substantially overstating 
your case.

> This brings me to my second point, the Repository.  According to the =
> draft there is no provision for the Repository to release the domain =
> name database, including domain name, owner, administrative contact, =
> equest that IAHC and CORE consider this suggestions.
> 
> Finally, at the Harvard Conference a few months ago, my dear friend Don =
> Mitchell of NSF (and the person who oversees the NSI contract) said that =
> if I wanted the InterNic database easily released I should post an RFC =
> to the IETF outlining the request.  Regretfully, people at the IETF told =
> me that such a request was not proper for an RFC.  But the IAHC draft, =
> as I understand things, will be (or is) an RFC and therefore, I request =
> that the IAHC include some provision for total release of the =
> "demographic" (non-financial) data to the public of the domain name =
> database as held by the Repository.  If the comments against such a =
> release are not as strong as Don believes they may be, then possibly it =
> will help persuade him to release the InterNic database.  That would be =
> a major accomplishment as well.

IMHO it would be an enormous step backward, and I for one will 
comments against the idea, as strong as I am able.  There are serious legal
and ethical issues with release of databases, even relatively innocuous 
ones like whois data.  In fact, I think the IAHC should put in 
explicit prohibitions against wholesale release of this data.

-- 
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