Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 09:01 AM 12/26/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Carl Oppedahl 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.
>[...]

So what exactly is it that changes on the 60th day, under your proposal?  A
trademark owner can go to court before or after that day, right?  And the
domain name functions before and after that day, unless a court orders to
the contrary, right?  So what's different on the 60th day?