Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Carl,

  Please read below your comments.

Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> At 03:29 PM 12/25/96 +0100, David Rosenthal wrote:
> 
> >>From:         Carl Oppedahl[SMTP:carl@oppedahl.com]
> 
> >>In the case of #2, the proposed 60-day period may be of substantial
> >>benefit.  The covetous trademark owner goes to court and says something
> >>that, reduced to its essence, is "I really wish I had signed up for
> >>that
> >>domain name years ago, make them give it to me".  The court then says
> >>"is
> >>there some good excuse why you didn't raise this issue during the
> >>60-day
> >>waiting period?"  Or, more likely the trademark owner does not even
> >>bother
> >>to court, because they know they would be asked this question and they
> >>know
> >>they would not have a satisfactory answer.
> >
> >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.
> 
> >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.
> 
> >>One problem with it is that then the domain name registration authority
> >>may
> >>do something stupid, as NSI did, enacting a policy that puts innocent
> >>domain name owners at risk of losing their domain names years after
> >>registration, despite their not infringing any trademarks.
> >
> >The 60-days are not intent to hinder the NSI for making stupid things.
> >In fact, the NSI does not have to comply with the IAHC rules until it's
> >contract ends. And once this has happened it is up to the
> >domain-name-regime to set out rules that adequately protect innocent
> >domain name owners.
> >
> >As far as I understand, the NSI did enact it's current policy in order
> >to protect itself from liability suit's from powerful trademark owners
> >it might not have the money to cope with.
> 
> 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.

  Carl, I have studied the Roadrunner case myself very carefully. 
Though,
you are the expert in this area of law( and I bow to that expertese), I
have to say that Roadrunner in some ways set themselves up.  We have had
some dealings with NSI, and it really depends on how you handle NSI and
the SAIC, leagely.  But that is another matter.  I don't really see how
anyof this is pertanant to what we are really discussing here.  And that
is my main point.  I reapect greatly your opinion but have not seen
the jist of this comment.  Maybe I am missreading it?
> 
> >In contrary to the legal
> >system in the States, here in Switzerland NSI would have a much better
> >stand. Here the loosing part in a trial has to pay for the whole
> >lawsuit. The Swiss registration authority (.ch) simply hands over the
> >control over a disputed domain to the judge.
> 
> Yes, I think the Swiss registration authority has more good sense than NSI.
> 
> >>No, you have made my point for me.  Of course you are right that there
> >>is a
> >>world of difference betweeen the mere owning of a domain name, and what
> >>you
> >>do with the domain name.  The 60-day period clearly separates these two
> >>things, which is all for the good.  The merely covetous trademark owner
> >>who
> >>simply wants someone else's domain name (and I have counseled dozens of
> >>domain name owners in situations such as this) will generally discover
> >>its
> >>feelings of envy after the 60 days is over, and thus is much less
> >>likely to
> >>succeed at disrupting the domain name owner's business, as compared
> >>with
> >>the situation under the terribly flawed NSI policy.
> >
> >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.

  Now this has my attention.  I compleatly agree with you here.  It
would
be quite simple to do better than NSI.  One thing I do not see in the
perposal is how is the ISOC and IANA, goint to handle conglomerates with
respect to TLD's and shared/non-shared usage.

Regards,


-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com