Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> >Leo Smith wrote:
> >> 
> >> Comment on 60 day:
> >> The 60 day proposal is there to meet the desires of the Trademark
> >> organization.  Should IAHC offer this 60 day benefit to the trademark group
> >> gratis...or should the inplementation of the 60 day rule be conditioned
> >> upon the trademark group paying for the costs associated with the benefit?
> 
> 
> I am sorry but that view is mistaken.  The effect of the 60-day provision
> would be to *help* domain name owners compared to the present (terribly
> flawed) regime in which NSI always takes the side of the party who seeks to
> take away a domain name.  

Carl, it actually is not at all helpful to keep mentioning
the "present (terribly flawed) regime".  I have not seen a single 
post supporting NSI's policy.

So we can assume that the new registries won't follow NSI's policy.

The real issue is whether the 60 day wait adds anything above a
*sensible*, hands-off policy on the part of the new registries.  You
claim that after a while the courts might accept passage the waiting
period as a flag for implicit acceptance of a potentially infringing
name.  However, there is no law and no precedent to this effect at 
this time, so your claim is hypothetical.

What we need to balance is this *potential*, *hypothetical* benefit of
the 60 day wait against the potential damage done to domain name
customers who have to wait.  In evaluating this balance we ought to
have some reasonable estimate of the percent of domain names that have
involved infringement.  My estimate that less than 0.1% of domain 
names have involved trademark infringement.  Therefore, there is no 
justification for the 60 day wait.

-- 
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