Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> At 08:48 AM 12/26/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> 
> >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>?

I just skimmed it -- since I have been following this issue for many 
months, there is nothing new in it.  I agree with every word, 
practically -- it doesn't say anything about a 60 day waiting 
period.

I agree that the approach of RFC 1591 is correct.  I think, however, 
that the 60 day wait does in fact violate the spirit of RFC 1591, 
because it seems to me to put pressure on new domain holders.

-- 
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