Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 08:48 AM 12/26/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Carl Oppedahl said:
>> 
>[long and passionate speech about Road Runner Case deleted]
>
>Carl, I can certainly understand your energy in this issue, and I 
>agree totally that NSI's policy is not just stupid, but pigheaded, 
>destructive, and insane.
>
>However, the 6 cases you mention represent a really miniscule fraction
>of domain names allocated, and they almost certainly would never have
>gone to court if NSI had just adopted the simple policy that you
>described long before the 60 day wait was described.

If lawsuit-counting is important to you, then I do hope you will take into
account that I have personally counseled several dozen other domain name
owners that received NSI 30-day letters, but who didn't have enough money
to sue NSI as Roadrunner did.  If each of the other half a dozen lawyers
who sued NSI as I did has received a similar number of inquiries from such
domain name owners, then the true total is far more than the  seven cases I
mentioned (roadrunner, clue, ty, dci, disc, regis, juno).

And I hope you will take into account that for each domain name owner who
has received a 30-day letter, there are (I know, I have counseled them too)
many others who find themselves on the receiving end of a high-pressure
effort by a trademark owner to try to use the threat of an NSI proceeding
to scare the domain name owner into giving up the domain name.

>I am worried that people, fueled by the injustice of NSI's policy, 
>are rushing to adopt an onerous regulation that really adds very 
>little protection over what the courts, and a reasonable policy on 
>the part of registrars, would offer.

Well, I happen to think that good old RFC 1591 is a pretty darn good
policy.  Have you read my position paper at
<http://www.patents.com/nsi/iip.sht>?