Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> 
> Yes, your proposal is a very good one.  If I had been appointed to the IAHC
> I would likely have suggested it.  After a while I realized why it's not
> absolutely the best idea, however.

Your approach is a slightly different model than what I had in mind.  
CONTESTABLE, as Karl shouted, would be a legal term looking backward 
in time, and would not mean that the DNS would be shut off.  So:

> 
> Let's flesh it out.  Domain issues immediately.  Then, for 60 days, if
> *anyone complains*, it does not matter who or why, the domain name gets
> turned off instantly.  

No -- during the 60 days the domain name does *not* get shut off if
someone complains.  Getting shut off *always* requires either 1)
voluntary effort on the part of the owner (arrived at through
negotiation), or 2) involuntary action on the part of the owner or the
registrar -- that is, a court order.  The registrar is strictly
neutral at *all* times. 

However, if there are no complaints during the 60 days, then their
ability to complain later is seriously limited.
[...]

> How do you like that proposal?

How about the modification above?


-- 
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